Stupid Statements
If everyone who violates a standard he advocates is a hypocrite, the word is meaningless. And worse, it makes it impossible for just about anyone to advocate moral behavior. (source)
This is probably the dumbest thing I’ve read today. The point of standing by the principles you stand for makes you a person of integrity. When you violate the principles you stand for by applying them only to certain people (or exempting yourself), that makes you a hypocrite.
And the statement that this “makes it impossible for just about anyone to advocate moral behavior”, is absurd. Unless of course, you are talking about selectively applying your rules of morality on certain groups of people, and ignoring them for others, or yourself? That makes you a hypocrite and a bigot. Don’t you just love labels?
Those wishing to “protect marriage” from gay couples are, to a very large extent, hypocrites. Sorry, but that’s just the truth. How many who want to “protect marriage” in the name of morality are on their second or third marriage? How many have had or are having love affairs while married? How many have had children out of wedlock? Yet, no one is throwing stones at those people because that would be unpopular.
If you are truly honest about enforcing morality, you can’t pick and choose which rule will apply to which person.
That’s just, well, hypocritical.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
My thoughts.....
"You should probably avoid this kind of crap... it's not good for your mental health..."
I agree with you on that one Dave. But I have come a long way since I started doing this. Now, these things are simply points of interest to me. I don't bring them inside of me or allow them my serious consideration (something that matters). I am simply mildly amused by them.
Novak, Coulter, Limgaugh, Hannety or O'Reilly = SPAWN OF SATAN, or George W. Bush... all one and the same to me, really.
The very first thing that pops into my mind when you mention....
Novak - someone who is desparately trying to be important at the cost of any shred of intrity that he may have once had
Coulter - total bitch without a brain. Engage mouth and let the vitriol spew
Limbaugh - over the hill... well, I'm not sure what, who sits on his ass 3 hours a day spewing pretty much anything a drug addicted person can come up with, all without a shred of truth
Hannety - Ozzy and Harriett, longing for the good 'ole days when it was fun and legal to go out and beat up gays (he would call them "fags", but in a loving, Christian way) on a slow Saturday night when you couldn't get laid
O'Reilly - In his world, the sky really is pink
Agreed ... the dumbest thing I have seen as well. Such tortured logic, but then how else can you twist this enough to place all the blame on the gay man and the media, and ignore the rev?
You should probably avoid this kind of crap... it's not good for your mental health to constantly be reminded the lengths the right will go to to blame us for everything. I noticed right away that while 'the rev' admitted to lying, buying drugs. But not the sex. His dismissal was, of course, because of the SEX. So how do they blame the MEDIA for this sex obsession when the evangelical community seems to have the same obsession?
Here's a hint for avoiding stress .... if you visit a web site and they show a prominent ad for Novak, Coulter, Limgaugh, Hannety or O'Reilly, chances are they are NOT saying anything worth your time. Despite the attempts we make to be fair, there are NOT two valid sides to everything. If I hear a speech by Jesse Jackson, I do NOT feel compelled to listen to a Klansman's view on the same topic for 'balance'. I have heard very little of Novak, Coulter, Limgaugh, Hannety or O'Reilly, yet I have heard ENOUGH to last me the rest of my life. If I visit a web site that promotes ANY of them, I move on.