Posted on 08/07/2004 12:33:42 AM PDT by familyop
If you're going to respond to a definition by authority and claim it's incorrect, let me know how A) your authority is better or B) how you distinguish the current situation from the definition. You can't just say 'you're not right' and claim you've done ANYTHING to forward discussion. What you have done is essentially restate your argument, which has already been substantially decimated by the presentation of authority disputing your claim.
I've pushed a pawn...and a queen. Let me know when you decide to play chess instead of Hungry Hungry Hippos.
Okay, if you insist on unpleasantness so be it.
Let's look at the definition you posted in note 12:
hypocrite
\Hyp"o*crite\, n. [F., fr. L. hypocrita, Gr. ? one who plays a part on the stage, a dissembler, feigner. See Hypocrisy.] One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.
All right, now what is the core of that definition?
one who plays a part...a dissembler, feigner...one who...puts on...false pretender...simulates.
In other words, for those in the cheap seats, the sine qua non of the status of hypocrite is pretending to be something you're not. If you're not pretending to be something you're not, or to virtues you don't practice, you're not a hypocrite. Period.
A person who once was something, but has stopped and now freely confesses and accuses himself, is not playing a part, dissembling, feigning, putting on, pretending, or simulating anything.
In other words, your own authority shows that your understanding of the concept of hypocrisy is totally wrong.
For the last paragraphs, just assume that I've made various slurs on your intelligence and reasoning abilities in the same tone as your notes to me, and then say bye bye.
You should be as much against legacy admissions as you are against racial preferences. Legacy admissions is basically buying a seat in a school.
BTW, in terms of who gets affected by affirmative action/legacies, it's minorities esp. black people. Blacks get more stigmatized by quota/legacy admissions because their peers will forever question if they were admitted based on their color and thus less qualified. Also, legacy appointments have always benefitted whites and in the past, esp. with universities up north desiring to keep blacks out but needed ingenious ways to do so because there were no segregation laws.
OTOH, the reality is that the Bush twins would be let into ANY school they so desired -- because their father is President! Therefore, the legacy point is moot.
Also -- like a strong football team -- a good source of donations.
Blah, blah, blah, but the crux of your blahing is:
"If you're not pretending to be something you're not, or to virtues you don't practice, you're not a hypocrite. Period."
Lest you forget in your haste to avoid the issue at hand, Bush didn't practice the virtue of not taking advantage of legacy admissions. Ever. Not in his daughter's case, not in his own case. And he'll never be able to take that back. Period. Not doing it NOW is irrelevant because he CAN'T do it now.
So the part of the definition you conveniently leave out in your summation, "one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety," absolutely applies. When he had the opportunity, he was not virtuous, and now that he CAN'T be virtuous, he claims piety.
My authority, your attempts notwithstanding, only shows that he IS a hypocrite. And your wrangling around the definition only shows that you can't deny the authority, only attempt to delineate it, and poorly. You again restate the same argument, which is that if you're not doing it now, you can't be a hypocrite. So Clinton can spout all he wants about sexual harassment, Carter can yap all he wants about military adventurism, and Gore can rail against out-and-out lying all he wants. Since they aren't doing it now (so far as we know), under your logic, they aren't hypocrites.
BUT IN REALITY, THEY ARE HYPOCRITES, AND YOU KNOW IT.
Why is that a problem? I can buy a seat in a stadium. I can buy a seat in a private high school or parochial school. Why should colleges be different?
Bu it all you want from a private institution.
I meant to say BUY it. Either way, the argument is about people getting into universities on pure merit then legacies like every other 'edge' goes against that argument and isn't legitimate. A private institution can do whatever it wants.
I agree that at a state university unless the applicant is admitted purely on merit then the university isn't serving the state purpose it was established for. I also think that as long as affirmative action is there, legacy admissions should be, and that legacy admissions are far more legitimate than affirmative action.
That said, I expect you will be against athletic scholarships as well. And set-aside scholarships for specific major areas. And special loan and grant programs for specific major areas.
All of these work against the state purpose of generally increasing the populace's education, and instead, specifically for a state purpose of increasing graduates in some major areas, which works against the market, to my way of thinking.
What makes legacy admissions more legitimate than affirmative action? I don't get it. I think I'll just have to say I have a difference of opinion with you on that. I don't believe admissions should be based on anything but merit and not because one is black,white, or can play football. Scholarships, if they are privately funded, are different and the state run school should NOT be offering money to anyone based on race, ethnicity,legacy,sports,etc. This concept of admission on merit is a very new concept, and one that has rightfully been born on the recent discussions of affirmative action/quotas.
Ever hear of a gentlemans C. (Now it's a gentlemans B)
That's when an legacy admission gets a C even though he never showed up for class.
All part of the same system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.