I am not going to end up saying to sometimes cry about hypocrisy isn't something that is called for.  One can do this to make a point.  However, what I see happen increasingly is that often times that is ALL someone ends up harping on, particularly in the political realm.  I have to wonder, does not a person have sufficiently decent values they can call others on?  Why would an individual call someone on hypocrisy in regards to something they don't agree with?  Are you that devoid of values in your own life, you can't appeal to them?  Whether it be liberal side pointing to those who were anti-gay getting caught in a scandal, or those on the conservative side busting on Obama or Occupy for demonstrating consumption of upper class food, to me, it looks to me like a person's values are weak. 

Morally, I can see the really only effective way to argue hypocrisy someone is professing values you agree with, and they fall short of these values.  To do it with values you don't agree with, looks like inferior arguing to me.  The idea is to call someone on faking it with good values, not falling short genuinely of ideals or someone doing something one agrees with.

Just my 2 cents...

what if one of the values you hold dear is character integrity? Hypocrisy is generally seen as a negative character trait yes?

Lol, that is the political response to your thread. However, I don't think there is a politician out there that isn't some kind of hypocrit, so I say hypocrisy in politics is a moot point.

I don't have issues with hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is human.

If you have any posts of me complaining about hypocrisy, read the first line again. :P

I have asked this: What is worse, a hypocrite or a genuine slimeball who is a slimeball all the time?  At least with the hypocrite you sometimes get behavior you find acceptable.

I stuck it in the political area, because the charge of hypocrisy with Romney running, and thrown at Democrats, makes it political.  Sticking this in the general section would be pushing it.  And also I was discussing the crying of others being hypocrites, less than the person actually being one.  Such charges are used to score political points.

I'd actually argue the hypocrite is worse.   (Though everyone will have at least SOME level of hypocricy.)

A slimeball who isn't a hypocirt will outright tell you he's a slimeball... or at least you will know he is a slimeball.

While a hypocrit generally wants one thing and does another.   As such they are misreprsentative of their positions and in general untrustworthy.

A slimeball, you can trust what a slimeball will do, so ones actions are much more eaisly predicted and can be compensated for/avoided.

Ok, how about TO DEAL WITH, the slimeball or the hypocrite?  I would say that, at least with the hypocrite, you will get some remotely acceptable behavior, even if faked.  With the slimeball, you don't get any.

A slimeball is going to say he is going to screw me to my face, and then do so.

The hypocrit is going to say he is going to help me... then screw me.

I'd rather not have my hopes up to be honest... and be prepaired to get out of the way.

But at least t he hypocrit looks nice in front of an audience and in public.  So again I say you stand a chance to get something when the hypocrit is on stage at least.  In both cases you know you are at risk of loss, just with the hypocrit, they will at least perform for an audience.

Like I said, I see it as a negative when they perform for the audience then immediatly do the opposite during legislation... which is what will happen with the hypocrit.  Either that or they just will promise soemthing and say it will help, when in reality it will do the opposite. (See Dodd-Frank, Patriot Act etc)

I would argue that the more strictly partisan a person is the more likely they're to be a hypocrite; and sometimes being called out for your hypocrisy is necessary. As an example there are many high profile "environmentalists" who live lifestyles of waste and excess which begs the question as to whether they're hypocrites or if they simply see the environmental movement as a way to make money. Calling these people out for having a carbon footprint the size of a small country while they claim that CO2 is destroying the environment is something that everyone should do; much like a preacher who has sex with men while demonizing homosexuality should be called out by everyone.