Originally posted by FMF I don't see how querying your obviously animosity-driven use of the word "hypocrite" ~ and asking you if changes of mind can always be described as such ~ can simply be dismissed as "nit-picking". If to engage you on this matter is to be dismissed as "argument for argument's sake", do you concede that calling Neil Kinnock a hypocrite for his change of mind was "argument for argument's sake" too?
Good morning
Gawd.
I've answered the same question
over and over and over and over again...
Just go and read the facts.
You are a serial nit-picker!!
Originally posted by Larkie Good morning
Gawd.
I've answered the same question
over and over and over and over again...
Just go and read the facts.
You are a serial nit-picker!!
I don't think I am. I just called you out on your highly partisan use of the word "hypocrite" which was something you offered to the discussion, not me. Since being asked if it might not instead have been characterized as a "change of mind" (rather than a kind of dishonesty or personal flaw in a man for whom you do not disguise your dislike) you have been prickly and defensive and have tried to make it about me personally rather than the valid point I put to you. 😉
Originally posted by wolfgang59 @Larkie I think you have failed to address 2 issues which are relevant to your accusation.
1. Proof that Kinnocks view of the Lords had not changed from the time of the statement you quoted up unto him accepting the peerage.
2. Even if you prove "1" then how does that make him a hypocrite?
Good afternoon.
I think Larkie just wants to trash talk a lifelong public servant he is contemptuous of while not taking any responsibility for the validity of his trash talk. 😛
Originally posted by FMF I think Larkie just wants to trash talk a lifelong public servant he is contemptuous of while not taking any responsibility for the validity of his trash talk. 😛
You do spout forth some rubbish FMF.
My previous replies to your questions - particularly on p3 -have included hard facts and accurate quotations. You choose to ignore these (I did ask you where you got the 2003 reforms from, but you've ignored that) and concentrate instead on semantics and the issue of my construing Kinnock's actions as hypocritical. Again, explained.
Now you choose to poke fun with a wise-crack little play on words and a silly little emoji- not big, not very clever, and all in all the sort of tactic played by an ace wind-up merchant bare of logical argument.
Originally posted by Larkie You do spout forth some rubbish FMF.
My previous replies to your questions - particularly on p3 -have included hard facts and accurate quotations. You choose to ignore these (I did ask you where you got the 2003 reforms from, but you've ignored that) and concentrate instead on semantics and the issue of my construing Kinnock's actions as hypocritical. Again ...[text shortened]... r, and all in all the sort of tactic played by an ace wind-up merchant bare of logical argument.
It seems Kinnock changed his mind about taking a place in the house of lords. You haven't demonstrated that this is not the case and have attributed him taking a place in the house of lords to something else. Unless you think changing one's mind is always hypocrisy. Do you?
Would you be one of these people who accuse Obama, who promised WXYZ regarding health reform on the campaign trail 8-9 years ago, but who, having been elected, had to settle for ABYZ because of political realities of the legislative process in Washington DC, of "lying" about W and X ?
Originally posted by FMF It seems Kinnock changed his mind about taking a place in the house of lords. You haven't demonstrated that this is not the case and have attributed him taking a place in the house of lords to something else. Unless you think changing one's mind is always hypocrisy. Do you?
Would you be one of these people who accuse Obama, who promised WXYZ regarding health ...[text shortened]... e of political realities of the legislative process in Washington DC, of "lying" about W and X ?
a. No, of course not. You asked this very question on p2 and I answered 'No, of course not'
b. No, I wouldn't be one of those people, as American politics really isn't my thing.
Originally posted by Larkie a. No, of course not. You asked this very question on p2 and I answered 'No, of course not'
But you haven't demonstrated that Kinnock changed his mind about taking a place in the house of lords which is what your accusation of hypocrisy is based on.
Originally posted by FMF But you haven't demonstrated that Kinnock changed his mind about taking a place in the house of lords which is what your accusation of hypocrisy is based on.
Look again at the quotation on p2
follow it by the quotation on p1
I call that a change of mind, certainly
I also call it hypocrisy.
You call it a change of mind only
Which is where our opinions differ.
Over to you.
Originally posted by Larkie Look again at the quotation on p2
follow it by the quotation on p1
I call that a change of mind, certainly
I also call it hypocrisy.
You call it a change of mind only
Which is where our opinions differ.
Over to you.
Sorry, my previous post had a typo in it. It should have read "But you haven't demonstrated that Kinnock didn't change his mind about taking a place in the house of lords which is what your accusation of hypocrisy is based on."
Originally posted by Larkie I call that a change of mind, certainly
I also call it hypocrisy.
If it was a change of mind, then how could it be called "hypocrisy"? Surely it would only be hypocrisy if he still held his 1976 views in 2005 when he entered the house of lords?
Originally posted by FMF Sorry, my previous post had a typo in it. It should have read "But you haven't demonstrated that Kinnock didn't change his mind about taking a place in the house of lords which is what your accusation of hypocrisy is based on."
No problem.
Same response though.
He did hold the same views on the Upper House throughout his political career as an MP.
Why else did he need to say
'"I accepted the kind invitation to enter the House of Lords as a working peer for practical political reasons."
The second half of that sentence reads like a caveat or an excuse.
Originally posted by Larkie No, I wouldn't be one of those people, as American politics really isn't my thing.
A politician changing his mind being accused of hypocrisy and a politician unable to persuade lawmakers to accept his promised policies being accused of lying are both taken from the same disingenuous-trash-'discourse' playbook that people like whodey and others on the Debates Forum use.
Originally posted by FMF A politician changing his mind being accused of hypocrisy and a politician unable to persuade lawmakers to accept his promised policies being accused of lying are both taken from the same disingenuous-trash-'discourse' playbook that people like whodey and others on the Debates Forum use.
Well, I'm not inclined to pass comment on specifics I know nothing about I'm afraid, nor can I generalise. I'll stick to passing comment on issues I know about, if that makes sense
bugger royalty
12 Jan '17 01:36
Back to Top