"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1112104877.806047e4e38eb868a17067c27d30ae77@teranews...

"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:mJOdnYRr4cE5RNXfRVn-gg@giganews.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1112062001.405ca4496ed3919a098c2540cedadc9f@teranews...

"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:D72dnZgBd_4mPdXfRVn-jg@giganews.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1112044243.0180580a12a9f6d39b075bba71bffff1@teranews...

Kevin Anthoney <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:71c07$42486bc0$51569c09$7742@nf1.news-service.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in news:1112037820.906635.95450
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

t-o-m d-e-l-a-y

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/politics/28delay.html

So, let me get this straight. In order to avoid hypocrisy, any
time somebody makes one decision in one case they must make an
identical decision in every subsequent case, no matter what the
circumstances?

Let's see now. DeLay barges into a difficult personal situation
that's got nothing to do with him in order to bring it to
national attention for his own political gain. It then
transpires that, when he had a similar decision to make, he
chose the option most similar to the one he's so critical of
now.

And we're not allowed to suggest he's a hypocrite?

Oh, you can suggest all you want. And I'm not trying to defend
his decision. I'm just trying to understand why it's hypocrisy to
make a different decision based upon the fact that the
circumstances are not identical.

No two situations are "identical", but what important details do
you imagine are different? Other than DeLay's own family not being
involved this time, of course.

Terri Schiavo is not considered "terminal".

OK, you've mentioned this several times. I'm not saying you're
wrong, but I'd like to know where this peculiar definiton comes
from. Presumably from some sort of legalese?

I've seen that statement in a number of articles, pro and con.

Like where? I'm really asking, because I can't imagine someone
claiming she's *not* terminal in some way.

And DeLay professes to
believe that she might recover. I realize that is an irrational
belief, but there it is; just because we disagree doesn't make him
a hypocrite.

It would make him pretty dumb though. I'd have thought he'd rather
be a hypocrite.

Well, he *is* a fundie and a politician. ;-)

Specifically a right winger. Goes with the territory, doesn't it?

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1112063458.5018234b1fc76d67ca940ce920092db7@teranews...

"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:vNmdnXa46ZHwK9XfRVn-pw@giganews.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1112061143.121e0160f5f06e2a55adc2c2740ce4bc@teranews...

"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:sq6dnbGNhO6bPdXfRVn-pQ@giganews.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1112044078.b6df947844b56db327dc0dbdab88d08c@teranews...

Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote in
news:9rpg41hcmirp1s72cn1607i3j571gpq6fq@ 4ax.com:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:09:54 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in news:1112037820.906635.95450
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

t-o-m d-e-l-a-y

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/politics/28delay.html

So, let me get this straight. In order to avoid hypocrisy, any
time somebody makes one decision in one case they must make an
identical decision in every subsequent case, no matter what the
circumstances?

Well, yeah, if the important circumstances are similar.
Which they are. 2 people who were simply toast, with no hope
of recovery.

I'm not trying to defend his decision, I just want to be sure
I've got "hypocrisy" right here. Seems that the previous case was
one where the victim was going to die regardless.

As is the present case.

Not unless the feeding tube was removed.

What are you talking about?

Terri Schiavo is not "terminal" in the medical sense of the word.

I am fairly certain she is, unless you refer to some legal sense that
has been codified. She certainly fits every definition of the term I
learned in medical school, as well as the definition in the copy of
Steadman's on my desk.

DeLay's father was going to die regardless of any effort to keep
him alive. He was on a respirator and other life-support machines,
not just a feeding tube.

A feeding tube is a life-support machine.

I agree with you, but there are other opinions on that.

It's not really a matter of opinion. In any case, is it DeLay's belief
that Schiavo will live without the feeding tube or....?

And whether you or I agree or not, Delay claims to
believe that Terri might recover.

What he claims to believe is completely irrelevent.

Not to the claim that he is hypocritical.

I suppose you could make a case that he's both grossly misinformed and
completely unable and unwilling to listen to the people who would
point out the facts of the case to him, which have been well known for
a decade. That way he wouldn't necessarily be a hypocrite, but would
be both closed minded and ignorant. I'm not sure that's better.

What the doctors
say is. In neither case was a recovery medically likely (possible,
really, in Terri's case for sure).

So, yes, in order to avoid hypocricy one should make similar
decisions in similar circumstances regardless of the benefit to
oneself. Do you have a different definition? I know you have a
different dictionary than many people.

No, my definition is the usual one, but I'm willing to consider the
point of view of the person making the decision.

Me too. So since these situations are the same in all the important
details, I ask again how DeLay is not being hypocritical.

Because he supposedly believes that the situations are different.

Yeah, I find that difficult to believe though. Don't you?

Since hypocrisy is about personal moral decisions, the beliefs of the
person making the decision are relevant.

But if the person "believes" wrongly, in a case which is public enough
that the actual facts would be rather more difficult to ignore than
not, I find that it stretches credulity a bit to accept that defense.
It's probably better to accept being a hypocrite than an idiot, isn't
it?

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1112063458.5018234b1fc76d67ca940ce920092db7@teranews...

What he claims to believe is completely irrelevent.

Not to the claim that he is hypocritical.

I suppose you could make a case that he's both grossly misinformed and
completely unable and unwilling to listen to the people who would point out
the facts of the case to him, which have been well known for a decade. That
way he wouldn't necessarily be a hypocrite, but would be both closed minded
and ignorant. I'm not sure that's better.

What the doctors
say is. In neither case was a recovery medically likely (possible,
really, in Terri's case for sure).

So, yes, in order to avoid hypocricy one should make similar
decisions in similar circumstances regardless of the benefit to
oneself. Do you have a different definition? I know you have a
different dictionary than many people.

No, my definition is the usual one, but I'm willing to consider the
point of view of the person making the decision.

Me too. So since these situations are the same in all the important
details, I ask again how DeLay is not being hypocritical.

Because he supposedly believes that the situations are different.

Yeah, I find that difficult to believe though. Don't you?

Since hypocrisy is about personal moral decisions, the beliefs of the
person making the decision are relevant.

But if the person "believes" wrongly, in a case which is public enough that
the actual facts would be rather more difficult to ignore than not, I find
that it stretches credulity a bit to accept that defense. It's probably
better to accept being a hypocrite than an idiot, isn't it?