I think people would rather be hypocrites then state their wrongs

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 76
Example:

Having a pro-life position yet be for the death penalty.
Saying everyone should have equal rights yet not have the same position when it comes to fetuses.
Irrationality defending your side instead of bringing out rational critiques.
 
1st one was for right wingers.
2nd one was for left wingers.
3rd one is for both sides.

I don't think I am saying too controversial if you aren't the people who personally do this and would like to defend yourself.

There are more but getting the most general points can have the most people understand the context. 

I think everyone has been a slave to this but different people have this problem at varying degrees.



It is hard to confess being wrong. Especially in a culture that puts way too much emphasis on pride.


But a lot of times it is not obvious to people what is wrong. Politics is especially messy, because compromise with the other party is often times met with great hostility.

It is, in a way, the type of justification that is addressed in our faith. Justification is not about following the right set of rules to a T or in conforming to certain guidelines. For example, a party platform. It is The Truth that sets you free, and though rules, laws, and guidelines are not necessarily bad and can help train in discernment, these in themselves do not define righteousness.


But if you really love The Truth, repentance, that is, confessing wrong and going the other way is essential. We all make mistakes, even when we do our best. That is ok, as long as we are honest and do our best to try to do better. Sincere faith is what it is about.
The Death Penalty saves lives, Abortion kills
--> @TheRealNihilist
Having a pro-life position yet be for the death penalty.
This is not a hypocritical position.

--> @janesix
How is it not? 
--> @TheRealNihilist
How is it not? 
I don't hold either view, but if i did I would say 'I am proinnocent life but against guilty life'.

I also think it's possible to confuse being hypocritial with being inconsistent.


--> @Dr.Franklin
"The death penalty saves lives, abortion kills".
What a non-sensical contradictory statement.

What you're actually trying to say, is that you personally have decided to go along with the notion that the one action is justified and the other isn't.

So, are you prepared to admit your mistake?

--> @keithprosser
I don't hold either view, but if i did I would say 'I am proinnocent life but against guilty life'.

I also think it's possible to confuse being hypocritial with being inconsistent.
The pro-life is the stance that murdering life is bad. The distinction innocent doesn't matter because every single child can be assigned with that if you don't consider the mother dying during pregnancy worthy of not calling them innocent. It is basically distinction that doesn't distinguish between the unborn. 

Another problem I find most people who advocate for the death penalty I think Religious. Why do you want to kill the person when he could've asked for forgiveness for your specific God?

Another problem is that if the law said something was bad then you are okay with it. So lets say if the law said you are guilty for being alive. Then in this scenario you are against life. Examples of this could be Jews in Germany, people sent to the Gulags, Native Americans forced to take pretty much food stamps due to the other Americans killing their source of food. 

--> @zedvictor4
A more recent study by Kenneth Land of Duke University and others concluded that, from 1994 through 2005, each execution in Texas was associated with "modest, short-term reductions" in homicides, a decrease of up to 2.5 murders. And in 2009, researchers found that adopting state laws allowing defendants in child murder cases to be eligible for the death penalty was associated with an almost 20 percent reduction in rates of these crimes. 

--> @Dr.Franklin
A temporary decrease in the murder rate is not really the same as saving lives is it?

Statistics and misinformation like this are generated for and by a particular lobby group.

I'm certain that the opposing lobby also generates it's own spurious statistics.

Anyway; that's a different discussion.


--> @Dr.Franklin
I have yet to see proof that the death penalty terrorizes people into thinking twice about severe crime. (or whatever theory)
--> @Snoopy
Dr.Franklin doesn't know what he is talking about. He parrots from his idols instead of actually realizing that in order for your claim to be true the data would have to support it. When you make the claim like the death penalty reduces homicides and your data doesn't support this. You know there is a problem with what the person is doing either parroting from idols or doesn't even know how to support his claim. Hopefully it is the first and I think it is. 
I have yet to see proof that the death penalty terrorizes people into thinking twice about severe crime. (or whatever theory)

Read the article
--> @TheRealNihilist
awwwwwwww
--> @Dr.Franklin
Correlation is not causation.
--> @TheRealNihilist
Cause you brought no evidence
--> @Dr.Franklin
I don't need to state your point is wrong. 
--> @TheRealNihilist
Having a pro-life position yet be for the death penalty.
Every human life is precious (after they're born).

Saying everyone should have equal rights yet not have the same position when it comes to fetuses.
There is no "right to an abortion".  Nobody is "pro-abortion".

The original ruling simply affirmed doctor-patient confidentiality.  A woman and her doctor should be free to make private decisions about medical procedures and treatments.

Suggesting that every embryo should be granted the full rights and protections of citizenship from conception essentially criminalizes miscarriage and eliminates all personal privacy.

Are you pro-privacy or anti-privacy?

There's also a matter of jurisdiction.

What happens inside a woman's body is her business.
--> @TheRealNihilist
as per usual
--> @Dr.Franklin
From a person who doesn't even know what it is required for an argument. 
I don't need to show counter evidence to show how bad your evidence is. Did you understand that or maybe like what you have shown in the past you don't?
--> @TheRealNihilist
Why are you playing these games, show me the wholesome evidence please
--> @3RU7AL
Every human life is precious (after they're born).
Why make the distinction when they are born?
There is no "right to an abortion".  Nobody is "pro-abortion".
Do I need to quote democratic presidential nominees on right to an abortion to take my claim actually hold anything or do you realize how easy it is for me to do?
Every single relevant democratic nominee is pro-abortion as in they want people to have a right for an abortion given they support it.  
The original ruling simply affirmed doctor-patient confidentiality.  A woman and her doctor should be free to make private decisions about medical procedures and treatments.
Who says being pro or against abortion runs the risk of patient confidentiality? Can you demonstrate how it is actually impacted by either being pro or against abortion?
Suggesting that every embryo should be granted the full rights and protections of citizenship from conception essentially criminalizes miscarriage and eliminates all personal privacy.
Miscarriage is used to state something that wasn't the fault of the women occurred. We don't use it to blame women because of what they do not have control over.

"eliminates all personal privacy" Do you consider this an exaggeration or I am actually not seeing how everything is lost because of it?
Are you pro-privacy or anti-privacy?
Whether you are pro or anti abortion it doesn't impact the privacy. Unless of course you selectively frame the discussion like what if the women wanted to get an abortion but lacked the privacy from the state given the law that states any kind of asking for abortion will be reported? Bearing in mind being against abortion doesn't equal anti-privacy.
There's also a matter of jurisdiction.
Like with anything that is connected to law. What is your point?
What happens inside a woman's body is her business.
No it isn't. It never was it never will be. Whatever I do that has an impact on another does require you know the proper authority to get involved. If lets say I assault or murder a person. I require a jail about what I did given the states value of life. It might be just implied but the government does have a part to play in bringing in the new generation. If it didn't democracy would fail given everyone would be dead. 


--> @Dr.Franklin
Why are you playing these games, show me the wholesome evidence please
I said correlation is not causation. Do you not understand that?
That means you would have to show the death penalty does cause life saving but you can't which is why you ask me show proof. I don't need to for your point to be lacking. 
--> @TheRealNihilist
There you are again,with these "games"
--> @Dr.Franklin
There you are again,with these "games"
Guess you don't understand simple concepts. Come back to me with a rebuttal or you know actually understand what I just said.