Hypocrisy in messages

[AFriendlyFace]

Forgive me if I've previously started a topic on this subject. I rather thought I had, but I can't find it. So I must have just discussed it before in different threads.

 

 

Let me start with a rather unlikely comment:

 

I have a problem with everyone being so down on hypocrisy!

 

 

My beef is that so often you get people saying, "look at how he lives and he has the nerve to talk to me about..." Or "I can't believe she's going to stand there and say that when she..."

 

I think that attitude is, for the most part, a load of B.S.

 

If someone's message is good, positive, and constructive then, yeah ideally they should lead by example but even if they can't it doesn't change the fact that the message is worth listening to.

 

I think it's perfectly fine for parents who smoke to tell their kids not to for example. Yes, that's sort of a 'do as I say and not as I do' mentality, but as I said, that DOES NOT change the fact that smoking is an unhealthy, dangerous activity, or that kids need to hear that message. The way I see it no one is perfect.

 

Also, very often it's exactly the people who have made the mistakes and gotten themselves into the rough situations that have the most experience and perspective on the matter at hand. Take for example the reformed (or unreformed!) alcoholic who champions the cause of safe, responsible drinking. Or the individual who has contracted HIV through drug use or unsafe sex who spends their time urging others not to make the same mistake.

 

Of course I can understand for example gay people who get outraged about Ted Haggard or Larry Craig condemning homosexuality and then having their own gay scandals, but really that's incidental. The point is that their message was wrong (from the perspective of the GLBT/allied community) in the first place! Does it make it harder to 'swallow'? Well I for one certainly wasn't going to swallow the narrow-minded message they were preaching to begin with! We might benefit from their being discredited to their followers, on the other hand I truly believe that if you felt strongly against this issue in the first place you shouldn't let such a thing dissuade you in and of itself.

 

So, what it comes down to for me is either a message is 'good' and 'worthy' and something I want to listen to, consider, and apply in my own life, or it's a bunch of nonsense that I shouldn't waste my time with. Either way the messenger is just the messenger as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

Thoughts on this?

 

 

-Kevin

[kitten]

Forgive me if I've previously started a topic on this subject. I rather thought I had, but I can't find it. So I must have just discussed it before in different threads.

 

 

Let me start with a rather unlikely comment:

 

I have a problem with everyone being so down on hypocrisy!

 

 

If someone's message is good, positive, and constructive then, yeah ideally they should lead by example but even if they can't it doesn't change the fact that the message is worth listening to.

 

I think it's perfectly fine for parents who smoke to tell their kids not to for example. Yes, that's sort of a 'do as I say and not as I do' mentality, but as I said, that DOES NOT change the fact that smoking is an unhealthy, dangerous activity, or that kids need to hear that message. The way I see it no one is perfect.

 

While I agree up to point, I think the problem lies in the fact that if the person doesn't 'practise what they preach' then how does someone (especially a child) know that the message they are giving is 'good' and valid?

 

If you already know the their message is worthy then you don't need the hypocrite to tell you that. If you don't already know it's valid then why should you trust them when they say that it is?

 

As regards parents who smoke telling their kids not to do so...

Children learn by example long before they can understand the verbal messages that their parents give. By the time the kids can understand the words 'smoking is an unhealthy, dangerous activity' then they have already been observing their parents for years and thereby learning from them that it is an apparently acceptable activity.

 

Perhaps the 'do as I say not as I do' attitude is okay for adults dealing with other adults but I believe it is NOT okay for parents with young children. The brains of young children are wired to learn by example long before they can learn from verbal messages.

 

Kit

[Graeme]

I think negative examples are legitimate. Someone who keeps trying to quit smoking is, I think, fine to tell others not to smoke. Their struggle to overcome their addiction, even if they fail, sends a message. I agree with Kit, though, that if they don't try to quit then that's another message.

 

Of course, you can always tell the kids that it's a grown-up thing. That's what we do when it comes to alcoholic drinks Though our boys keep telling us to drink less. Our youngest told us that we shouldn't have more than two bottles of wine a day I think he meant glasses, and two glasses a week....

 

If someone says something that is contradicted by their own actions, then you need to look at the bigger picture. Ted Haggard, for example, appeared to believe the messages he was preaching, even if he couldn't resist temptation himself. I disagree with the message he was preaching, but his hypocrisy was in not admitting that he was suffering. It's one of the reasons the ex-gay message is so seductive for parents who believe that homosexuality is a major sin. The people in the ex-gay organisations have been there and appear to have overcome. I'm not condoning them, but I can see why the ex-gay movement prospers in some places.

[glomph]

We used to think/hope that it would help prevent drug use if famous people would talk to young people about their past drug problems. But the message that kids often came away with was, "Well, he did drugs, and he came out OK, and so can I."

[C James]

Great post. An example I wanted to cite is somewhat political, so I made my reply in the soapbox.

[Daisy]

I think negative examples are legitimate. Someone who keeps trying to quit smoking is, I think, fine to tell others not to smoke. Their struggle to overcome their addiction, even if they fail, sends a message. I agree with Kit, though, that if they don't try to quit then that's another message.

 

One of my older friends is a single parent and smokes. In the last year her boy (now 15) has started smoking. She wants to quit, but keeps on failing or trying halfheartedly (she doesnt smoke alot though). I was at her house when she caught her son and his friend smoking, right outside her front door once! I was visiting her another time, just before I arrived she had tricked him, she had gone to his room and asked for a cigarette, he trusted her and offered her his packet (they are actually very close generally because she is only young and they've been through alot together). She then had a moral dillema and decided she couldnt give the packet back and had to tell him strongly that he shouldnt be smoking - the problem was he had trusted her. I convinced her that although she couldnt give him the packet back, or directly give him the money (as he would obviously go straight and buy some more so she'd be directly funding him) to let him buy something with the money and give her the receipt. All the while in the stress she started smoking his pack, which he saw when he came downstairs and demanded to be paid back. It was very difficult (and I wish she had resisted in that moment). Problem, she didnt want him to not tell her things. It just seems easier if the parent doesnt smoke. On the other hand, my mother smoking is what has convinced by brother (16) that he will never ever touch them, he detests smoking now.

 

About the drugs comment, this friend at one point had a problem with drugs herself, not a bad addiction, just something she occasionally did. A freak accident happened and she had a stroke at 32 directly because of cocaine (there was no lasting damage). She has never ever touched drugs since, and has changed alot since then in general. Since she has told her son, I think in the last year (she's 36) as a warning to not touch drugs as he knew what happened to his mother. I think that incident has touched him, because he realised how scared she had been about what could have happened, however she is having problems with him and cannabis. Parenting seems really difficult.

 

Celia

Edited May 16, 2008 by Smarties

[AFriendlyFace]

While I agree up to point, I think the problem lies in the fact that if the person doesn't 'practise what they preach' then how does someone (especially a child) know that the message they are giving is 'good' and valid?

 

If you already know the their message is worthy then you don't need the hypocrite to tell you that. If you don't already know it's valid then why should you trust them when they say that it is?

 

As regards parents who smoke telling their kids not to do so...

Children learn by example long before they can understand the verbal messages that their parents give. By the time the kids can understand the words 'smoking is an unhealthy, dangerous activity' then they have already been observing their parents for years and thereby learning from them that it is an apparently acceptable activity.

 

Perhaps the 'do as I say not as I do' attitude is okay for adults dealing with other adults but I believe it is NOT okay for parents with young children. The brains of young children are wired to learn by example long before they can learn from verbal messages.

Excellent points, Kit!

 

I hadn't completely looked at it from that angle.

 

Our youngest told us that we shouldn't have more than two bottles of wine a day I think he meant glasses, and two glasses a week....

I rarely have more than two bottles a day

 

One of my older friends is a single parent and smokes. In the last year her boy (now 15) has started smoking. She wants to quit, but keeps on failing or trying halfheartedly (she doesnt smoke alot though). I was at her house when she caught her son and his friend smoking, right outside her front door once! I was visiting her another time, just before I arrived she had tricked him, she had gone to his room and asked for a cigarette, he trusted her and offered her his packet (they are actually very close generally because she is only young and they've been through alot together). She then had a moral dillema and decided she couldnt give the packet back and had to tell him strongly that he shouldnt be smoking - the problem was he had trusted her. I convinced her that although she couldnt give him the packet back, or directly give him the money (as he would obviously go straight and buy some more so she'd be directly funding him) to let him buy something with the money and give her the receipt. All the while in the stress she started smoking his pack, which he saw when he came downstairs and demanded to be paid back. It was very difficult (and I wish she had resisted in that moment). Problem, she didnt want him to not tell her things.

Oh dear, that does sound complicated!

 

It just seems easier if the parent doesnt smoke. On the other hand, my mother smoking is what has convinced by brother (16) that he will never ever touch them, he detests smoking now.

It seems that a parent that drinks and smokes is very likely to have one or the other affect on their kids. Most all of my friends who are very vocal about not drinking and smoking have had parents who struggled with these things. On the other hand many others have themselves gone down the same road.

 

About the drugs comment, this friend at one point had a problem with drugs herself, not a bad addiction, just something she occasionally did. A freak accident happened and she had a stroke at 32 directly because of cocaine (there was no lasting damage). She has never ever touched drugs since, and has changed alot since then in general. Since she has told her son, I think in the last year (she's 36) as a warning to not touch drugs as he knew what happened to his mother. I think that incident has touched him, because he realised how scared she had been about what could have happened, however she is having problems with him and cannabis. Parenting seems really difficult.

You know that's exactly the thing I worked myself up into a frenzy about a few weeks ago. It was ridiculous, I don't have kids but I was completely worried about how I was going to deal with the drug issue with them.

 

Basically I intend to instill in them a self-reliant, confident, intellectually curious mentality. I don't want them to do things or believe things simply because other people tell them to. I want them to do their own research and figure things out for themselves. Decide what they believe - with plenty of information at their disposal - on their own.

 

It all sounds great, but then I got to thinking, "what about drugs?". I really don't want my kids experimenting with drugs to decide if they really are dangerous and unhealthy. So what am I supposed to do? Tell them, "I don't want you to blindly listen to people. I want you to make your own decisions. Now don't use drugs!" Talk about hypocritical.

 

I decided all I could do was hopefully get them to not want to use drugs and to supply them the facts, but it's still risky business.

 

 

-Kevin

[Daisy]

You know that's exactly the thing I worked myself up into a frenzy about a few weeks ago. It was ridiculous, I don't have kids but I was completely worried about how I was going to deal with the drug issue with them.

 

Basically I intend to instill in them a self-reliant, confident, intellectually curious mentality. I don't want them to do things or believe things simply because other people tell them to. I want them to do their own research and figure things out for themselves. Decide what they believe - with plenty of information at their disposal - on their own.

 

It all sounds great, but then I got to thinking, "what about drugs?". I really don't want my kids experimenting with drugs to decide if they really are dangerous and unhealthy. So what am I supposed to do? Tell them, "I don't want you to blindly listen to people. I want you to make your own decisions. Now don't use drugs!" Talk about hypocritical.

 

I decided all I could do was hopefully get them to not want to use drugs and to supply them the facts, but it's still risky business.

 

You sound like you've been thinking alot about kids, I noticed it in another post too . Maybe you just have to stress how dangerous certain activities are, give examples, stressing the whole it may not be worth trying, I know that worked with me - my mum gave me an example of a friend of a friend of a friend, who was a med student, never touoched drugs, then one-day decided to try e, had half a tablet and very tragically had a bad reaction and died. I couldnt stop thinking about that since.

 

My friend, discovered a bag of weed on the floor in the sitting room (I think it was just under the sofa) that her son and his friend had accidentally forgotten to take up to his room. She was cleaning and discovered it with a friend. they plotted how to make the boys worry that they'd found out. When he came home from school, told him casually that they'd thoroughly cleaned the sitting room, later that evening his bestfriend came round, and the sneaked in to check under the sofa, she could tell they were starting to panic because it wasnt there, but she didnt let on at all that she knew. She let them stew for a few hours, before eventually confronting them that her friend/cleaner had rang to let her know what she had found earlier in the day, that the lady was very upset and had said she was considering not coming back, told her son how it was bad because this lady was a gossip (which she is anyway) and it was bad for her buisness reputation- she's a beauty therapist and has clients at her home. but that it might be ok if the boy rang and apologised to her. they ad-libbed, and eventually pretended that the lady's husband was a policeman and wanted a word as well over the phone. the boy apologised, and got a message about how the man was letting the boy off but should really be his duty to report it and what could happen from there. the poor boy learnt his lesson about consequences I think. after his mother had a word about drugs etc etc, reminded him about her stroke. said there would be no more consequences. but had to change her mind the next day when she realised she couldnt not tell the other boys mother, but warned him first. (knew she would react badly as she is some kind of drugs rehabilitation nurse for those severly damaged, so then again the boy himself should have known better). Not sure what I think about her method, but she's certainly a good actor. can't tell you whether it worked and he's not tried again.

 

celia

Edited May 17, 2008 by Smarties

[AFriendlyFace]

You sound like you've been thinking alot about kids, I noticed it in another post too .

Such thoughts are seldom far from my mind.

Maybe you just have to stress how dangerous certain activities are, give examples, stressing the whole it may not be worth trying, I know that worked with me - my mum gave me an example of a friend of a friend of a friend, who was a med student, never touoched drugs, then one-day decided to try e, had half a tablet and very tragically had a bad reaction and died. I couldnt stop thinking about that since.

Hmmm, "So I knew someone whose mother had a friend who had a friend who had a friend who was a med student and..."

My friend, discovered a bag of weed on the floor in the sitting room (I think it was just under the sofa) that her son and his friend had accidentally forgotten to take up to his room. She was cleaning and discovered it with a friend. they plotted how to make the boys worry that they'd found out. When he came home from school, told him casually that they'd thoroughly cleaned the sitting room, later that evening his bestfriend came round, and the sneaked in to check under the sofa, she could tell they were starting to panic because it wasnt there, but she didnt let on at all that she knew. She let them stew for a few hours, before eventually confronting them that her friend/cleaner had rang to let her know what she had found earlier in the day, that the lady was very upset and had said she was considering not coming back, told her son how it was bad because this lady was a gossip (which she is anyway) and it was bad for her buisness reputation- she's a beauty therapist and has clients at her home. but that it might be ok if the boy rang and apologised to her. they ad-libbed, and eventually pretended that the lady's husband was a policeman and wanted a word as well over the phone. the boy apologised, and got a message about how the man was letting the boy off but should really be his duty to report it and what could happen from there. the poor boy learnt his lesson about consequences I think. after his mother had a word about drugs etc etc, reminded him about her stroke. said there would be no more consequences. but had to change her mind the next day when she realised she couldnt not tell the other boys mother, but warned him first. (knew she would react badly as she is some kind of drugs rehabilitation nurse for those severly damaged, so then again the boy himself should have known better). Not sure what I think about her method, but she's certainly a good actor. can't tell you whether it worked and he's not tried again.

Wow! It sounds like this lady has a very interesting life and strives to be the mother she can be!

[Procyon]

I'm going to use smokers as an example here, and I just want to say before I begin that I think smoking is a disgusting habit that is hazardous to everyone around you, and I think it'd be best if it weren't allowed at all -- but that's not how it is, and I know people who smoke, who are nice people, who seem to have a brain even though they smoke, and who aren't going to quit any time soon.

 

While I agree up to point, I think the problem lies in the fact that if the person doesn't 'practise what they preach' then how does someone (especially a child) know that the message they are giving is 'good' and valid?

 

I think you underestimate children. If you tell a child something and genuinely mean it, the child will understand it. Okay that may not apply to toddlers, but I don't think toddlers will take up habits when they grow up just because they saw it being done when they were toddlers. And if you tell a child your sincere view on something, they'll listen -- if we use smoking as an example, however, I've seen loads of parents who half-heartedly tell their kids that smoking is bad, and in those cases it obviously won't have the desired effect. Primarily, I think, because the parent didn't actually desire it.

 

If you already know the their message is worthy then you don't need the hypocrite to tell you that. If you don't already know it's valid then why should you trust them when they say that it is?

 

As regards parents who smoke telling their kids not to do so...

Children learn by example long before they can understand the verbal messages that their parents give. By the time the kids can understand the words 'smoking is an unhealthy, dangerous activity' then they have already been observing their parents for years and thereby learning from them that it is an apparently acceptable activity.

 

Wow... then what are parents who can't quit to do? Tell their kids that smoking is good for them, or else they're hypocrites? Some people really can't quit, or maybe they simply don't have the time and energy -- we non-smokers might think you just need to make up your mind and quit, but there's a reason that people do smoke, and that's because they can't quit. And as for other vices -- one can't just stop living because one is a parent.

 

 

I think negative examples are legitimate. Someone who keeps trying to quit smoking is, I think, fine to tell others not to smoke. Their struggle to overcome their addiction, even if they fail, sends a message. I agree with Kit, though, that if they don't try to quit then that's another message.

 

If you're insincere in what you're saying that's another message. If you've given up on trying to quit you can still get the message across if you're being honest and are saying what you really believe. I had a friend whose face was *really* wrinkled at age 50 already because she smoked, and she used to tell people to look at what had become of her and avoid smoking at all costs -- and she also had trouble with her lungs, which she kept pointing out to her children as well. She couldn't stop smoking, but none of her kids (who are now in their late teens and early twenties) are smokers.

 

 

I rarely have more than two bottles a day

 

When I have two bottles a day I make sure to point out to my son that one bottle should be the absolute limit! Dunno if he really gets the message though when he sees me dancing on the table...

 

 

It seems that a parent that drinks and smokes is very likely to have one or the other affect on their kids. Most all of my friends who are very vocal about not drinking and smoking have had parents who struggled with these things. On the other hand many others have themselves gone down the same road.

 

Again, it's all about attitude. In that respect I agree that it's what you do and not what you say that affects your children. How do you handle drinking and smoking? What about things like speeding? A ten-year-old does understand that you can drive a bit too fast on a virtually empty country road, but not in a street full of playing kids. They understand that there are different contexts that demand different types of behaviour, and if we don't teach them that we're not doing them a favour.

 

You know that's exactly the thing I worked myself up into a frenzy about a few weeks ago. It was ridiculous, I don't have kids but I was completely worried about how I was going to deal with the drug issue with them.

 

Basically I intend to instill in them a self-reliant, confident, intellectually curious mentality. I don't want them to do things or believe things simply because other people tell them to. I want them to do their own research and figure things out for themselves. Decide what they believe - with plenty of information at their disposal - on their own.

 

It all sounds great, but then I got to thinking, "what about drugs?". I really don't want my kids experimenting with drugs to decide if they really are dangerous and unhealthy. So what am I supposed to do? Tell them, "I don't want you to blindly listen to people. I want you to make your own decisions. Now don't use drugs!" Talk about hypocritical.

 

I decided all I could do was hopefully get them to not want to use drugs and to supply them the facts, but it's still risky business.

 

Lol, don't worry about it! Be honest and treat them like thinking beings, because that's what they are -- don't underestimate them. I'm not a great parent in general, but that is something that I think I've done reasonably well, I never shrank from deep or complicated discussions with my son -- if you're prepared to explain things to kids, they usually get it. It has worked with students as well (I used to be a teacher) -- you talk to them like you'd talk to any adult, but explain the things they don't get. And above all, show clearly what you find wrong and upsetting.

 

Anyway I'm sure you'd do that automatically anyway, without my telling you how. You'll be a great parent!

[kitten]

First of all, apologies if I mess up the quoting - I'm relatively new to using the GA forums and I'm still workinout how to use all the things it can do.

 

I think you underestimate children. If you tell a child something and genuinely mean it, the child will understand it. Okay that may not apply to toddlers, but I don't think toddlers will take up habits when they grow up just because they saw it being done when they were toddlers.

 

Wow... then what are parents who can't quit to do? Tell their kids that smoking is good for them, or else they're hypocrites? Some people really can't quit, or maybe they simply don't have the time and energy -- we non-smokers might think you just need to make up your mind and quit, but there's a reason that people do smoke, and that's because they can't quit. And as for other vices -- one can't just stop living because

 

I certainly don't underestimate children!

They learn many difficult tasks in a short time - to talk, to walk, to recognise emotions in others, to fit in with social structures, etc. They can do this much more easily than adults because their brains are wired to do so. Part of their skill in learning such complex tasks is copying a parents behaviour long before they understand the words 'good' and 'bad'.

 

Copying parents is common to many higher animals, especially primates. For our human and pre-human ancestors it was of great survival value - for example, by copying what the parents eat they are more likely to avoid poisonous foods. This hard-wired ability and tendency to copy preceeds and often over rides verbal understanding and ability to think logically.

 

As for parents who smoke...

Simple google searches will provide lots of evidence to show two important things: 1) that children of smokers are more likely to smoke; 2) that people exposed to 'passive smoking' suffer bad health effects. Therefore, in my opinion (and yes, I admit that I'm a very opinionated person!) for both those reasons it is irresponsible and reprehensible for parents to smoke in the presence of their children.

 

This is not the same as alcohol because a small amount of alcohol is not as dangerous as a small amount of smoking. There is no such thing as a 'safe' amount of smoking. Also, there is no such thing as 'passive drinking'.

 

Here in England it is illegal to smoke in the workplace because of the danger of passive smoking to colleagues. Yet, illogically in my view, it is perfectly legal to expose young children to these dangers in one's own home. Adult workmates, who could at least complain, are given more protection than babies who are totally at the mercy of parents.

 

As for what are parents to do if they can't quit? Simple - don't smoke when the kids can see them.

After all, they do other things (eg have sex, empty their bowels, etc) in private and away from their kids, so why not show a little consideration to their children and smoke in private and away from kids? That way, even if the kids are exposed to a bad influence (i.e. they know their parents are smoking privately) it will minimise their exposure to passive smoking.

 

Kit

[Procyon]

As for parents who smoke...

Simple google searches will provide lots of evidence to show two important things: 1) that children of smokers are more likely to smoke; 2) that people exposed to 'passive smoking' suffer bad health effects. Therefore, in my opinion (and yes, I admit that I'm a very opinionated person!) for both those reasons it is irresponsible and reprehensible for parents to smoke in the presence of their children.

 

This is not the same as alcohol because a small amount of alcohol is not as dangerous as a small amount of smoking. There is no such thing as a 'safe' amount of smoking. Also, there is no such thing as 'passive drinking'.

 

Here in England it is illegal to smoke in the workplace because of the danger of passive smoking to colleagues. Yet, illogically in my view, it is perfectly legal to expose young children to these dangers in one's own home. Adult workmates, who could at least complain, are given more protection than babies who are totally at the mercy of parents.

 

As for what are parents to do if they can't quit? Simple - don't smoke when the kids can see them.

After all, they do other things (eg have sex, empty their bowels, etc) in private and away from their kids, so why not show a little consideration to their children and smoke in private and away from kids? That way, even if the kids are exposed to a bad influence (i.e. they know their parents are smoking privately) it will minimise their exposure to passive smoking.

 

Kit

 

I agree completely, smoking is both dangerous to others and disgusting (you have to wash your hair as soon as you've been with someone who smokes for one thing, and your clothes too, of course, i can only imagine what my lungs look like after something like that) and in no way comparable to other legal drugs like alcohol and caffeine.

 

So yeah, of course parents should *never* smoke in the same room as their children. But demanding that they give it up completely -- well, it'd be ideal if nobody smoked at all, of course, but if it were that easy everyone would give it up, I think. After all it makes you stink and gives you premature wrinkles as well as lung cancer and other not too pleasant health problems.

 

And they still have to tell their children it's a bad thing to smoke.

[AFriendlyFace]

When I have two bottles a day I make sure to point out to my son that one bottle should be the absolute limit! Dunno if he really gets the message though when he sees me dancing on the table...

LOL!

 

Again, it's all about attitude. In that respect I agree that it's what you do and not what you say that affects your children. How do you handle drinking and smoking? What about things like speeding? A ten-year-old does understand that you can drive a bit too fast on a virtually empty country road, but not in a street full of playing kids. They understand that there are different contexts that demand different types of behaviour, and if we don't teach them that we're not doing them a favour.

Amen to that!

 

Lol, don't worry about it! Be honest and treat them like thinking beings, because that's what they are -- don't underestimate them. I'm not a great parent in general, but that is something that I think I've done reasonably well, I never shrank from deep or complicated discussions with my son -- if you're prepared to explain things to kids, they usually get it. It has worked with students as well (I used to be a teacher) -- you talk to them like you'd talk to any adult, but explain the things they don't get. And above all, show clearly what you find wrong and upsetting.

 

Anyway I'm sure you'd do that automatically anyway, without my telling you how. You'll be a great parent!

Awww thanks!

 

Therefore, in my opinion (and yes, I admit that I'm a very opinionated person!) for both those reasons it is irresponsible and reprehensible for parents to smoke in the presence of their children.

An opinionated person?!

 

*gasp*

 

We've certainly never had one of those around here before!

 

This is not the same as alcohol because a small amount of alcohol is not as dangerous as a small amount of smoking. There is no such thing as a 'safe' amount of smoking. Also, there is no such thing as 'passive drinking'.

 

Here in England it is illegal to smoke in the workplace because of the danger of passive smoking to colleagues. Yet, illogically in my view, it is perfectly legal to expose young children to these dangers in one's own home. Adult workmates, who could at least complain, are given more protection than babies who are totally at the mercy of parents.

 

As for what are parents to do if they can't quit? Simple - don't smoke when the kids can see them.

After all, they do other things (eg have sex, empty their bowels, etc) in private and away from their kids, so why not show a little consideration to their children and smoke in private and away from kids? That way, even if the kids are exposed to a bad influence (i.e. they know their parents are smoking privately) it will minimise their exposure to passive smoking.

Personally I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm sure this is a case of easier said than done.

 

I also do agree with Procyon that sincerity makes a big difference too. It's possible that the majority of these parents of smokers weren't being sincere and/or weren't trying too hard. I would further hazard a guess that a great deal of that might have been because they themselves felt like hypocrites and like they're message wouldn't get through given the circumstances.

 

I also hope we're not all being too offensive to smokers; I know we do have several around here.

 

Anyway two new topics in this discussion:

 

 

-I think I personally, and most people for that matter, have more understanding a patience with someone who is obviously being sincere about their message (whatever it may be), but still struggling with it. I think people would tend to understand in that circumstance that this is a case of someone only being human and not perfect. Thus it seems that the key to what makes someone a 'hypocrite' isn't so much a disparity between their actions and their message, but a disparity the sincerity of their intended or desired actions/behaviour (regardless of 'success') and their message. Thoughts on that?

 

-Also, to what extent does secrecy and dishonesty play a role? It seems to me that people are quick to condemn individuals who 'hide' something inconsistent with their message and are then found out, than people who are upfront about their struggle - or at least for whom it is common knowledge that they are struggling.

 

In some ways this is perhaps unfair or inaccurate since very likely in many cases it was extreme fear and personal feelings of failure which led them to hide their struggle in the first place. Granted they're still being deceptive and of course it's also possible that they never believed the 'message' at all and were simply pretending to believe and follow it for some ulterior motive, but I actually think in most cases it's guilt and shame which drives people to hide their struggles. Thoughts on this? Should people who are found to be 'dishonest' about their struggle face harsher consequences?

 

 

 

-Kevin

[kitten]

Anyway two new topics in this discussion:

 

-I think I personally, and most people for that matter, have more understanding a patience with someone who is obviously being sincere about their message (whatever it may be), but still struggling with it. I think people would tend to understand in that circumstance that this is a case of someone only being human and not perfect. Thus it seems that the key to what makes someone a 'hypocrite' isn't so much a disparity between their actions and their message, but a disparity the sincerity of their intended or desired actions/behaviour (regardless of 'success') and their message. Thoughts on that?

 

My opinion

 

All generalisations are dangerous, and in the case of 'hypocrisy' they are especially dangerous, so each case needs to be treated individually. My judgment and degree of understanding or forgiveness would depend on the message, who is giving the message and the degree of hypocrisy.

 

For one extreme hypothetical example - a politician with power over others has been trying to enact laws to make homosexual acts criminal. Then he is found to have been paying for sex with men for many years. Do we forgive and understand that he is just a flawed and imperfect human?

 

The other hypothetical extreme - a priest who took a celibate lifestyle partly because he doesn't like being with kids exhorts his parishioners to be loving and caring of their children. He himself is nice to kids but can't bring himself to enjoy being with them. The message is good but he can't live up to it. Do we forgive him?

 

Another forgivable 'hypocrisy' (if it counts as hypocris at all) might be a friend who tries but fails to give up his dependency on illegal drugs begs me not to experiment with such drugs.

 

-Also, to what extent does secrecy and dishonesty play a role? It seems to me that people are quick to condemn individuals who 'hide' something inconsistent with their message and are then found out, than people who are upfront about their struggle - or at least for whom it is common knowledge that they are struggling.

 

In some ways this is perhaps unfair or inaccurate since very likely in many cases it was extreme fear and personal feelings of failure which led them to hide their struggle in the first place. Granted they're still being deceptive and of course it's also possible that they never believed the 'message' at all and were simply pretending to believe and follow it for some ulterior motive, but I actually think in most cases it's guilt and shame which drives people to hide their struggles. Thoughts on this? Should people who are found to be 'dishonest' about their struggle face harsher consequences?

 

Again, you raise good questions and again I feel each case needs to be decided on individual merits. Personally I feel that in most cases secrecy is not always the same as dishonesty and I would look less favourably on dishonesty than I would on secrecy.

 

Also, as you say, fear can be a strong mitigating factor.

 

For example - a teacher in a very conservative state is very supportive of his gay students but, out of fear of the consequences, he continually and vehemently denies his own homosexuality. Is he a hypocrite? And if he is indeed a hypocrite, should we not forgive him?

 

Kit