Grey Thoughts
28.9.05
 
Philosophy - Bias and band wagons
A recent book has been making waves with the leftists. Help Mom, The Liberals are under the bed is a somewhat humorous childrens book that puts forward conservative ideas and takes a swipe are the leftists.

Of course, this book has many of the vocal left up in arms and crying bloody murder. Andrew Sullivan, the homosexual activist journalist, blogger and writer has likened the book to Mao's propaganda and complains that
Whatever else this kind of ideological indoctrination is about, the notion that it is promoting freedom of thought is risible.


Not only is Andrew Sullivan wrong, as he is comparing state sponsored and/or enforced indoctrination with an individuals efforts of a single book, but Andrew also shows his hypocrisy. You see, Andrew doesn't care about 'ideological indoctrination' when it adheres to his own ideology. I have never heard Andrew complain about children's book on homosexuality ("King & King" and "Daddy's Roommate"). Indeed, just today life Site news has an article about enforced "diversity" training in elementary school's in Massachusetts (With no parental notification required!). I don't see Andrew on his band wagon about that. Apparently freedom of thought doesn't apply to his pet issue.

Andrew is allowed his opinions, but pretending to be for 'freedom of thought' and against 'ideological indoctrination' is hypocritical. The attempt to be seen as 'neutral' is the cheapest tactic of debate. Always remember that no one is neutral.
Comments:
Alan, welcome back. It's interesting how to Sullivan, only liberal speech is considered free speech. Thanks for all the well-written posts on moral relativism and subjectivism.
 
An inconsistently applied moral thesis isn't hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when you vehemently preach against some action that you do without admitting that you do the very same thing, particularly when this goes on for some time and isn't some brief stumble. Sullivan is simply being inconsistent in the application of his principle. That's not hypocrisy. He thinks it applies only in one place, but it applies in another place that he hasn't applied it to and thus continues to accept the behavior in the second case.
 
Thanks resot4em. Glad to see you are still around. The holiday way very relaxing :)

I think Jeremy is correct in that I have not properly used the term hypocrisy.

Double standard is probably a better way to describe it.

Jeremy, Thanks for the responses. I appreciate that you always take the time to give a substational response when you disagree.

I think you have not defined hypocrisy precisely.

Checking the dictionary definition, Hypocrisy is "1: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction 2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have"

As I cannot say for sure whether Andrew really doesn't oppose ideological indoctrination or is merely unaware of his double standard, I cannot accurately describe him as hypocritical.

As a counter to your definition, I would suggest a drug addict may know and profess that getting high is wrong, but continually stumbles due to a physical addiction is not guilty of hypocrisy.

The defining point seems to be claiming that you do not do the behaviour when you do or that you profess something you don't really believe. (Both of these can be evidenced by your definition of hypocrisy, but there are exceptions that would indicate your definition is not precise enough)
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com