Christian views on current news, Australian style
Archives
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
February 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
November 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
February 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
November 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
Atom Feed
Blogs I Frequent
- Evangelical Outpost
- Intelligent Design the Future
- Australian Christian Lobby
- Instapundit
- Verum Serum
- Jivin Jehoshaphat
- Mark Steyn
- Hugh Hewitt
- The Corner
- Iraq the Model
- Prosthesis
- Dawn Eden
- Belmont Club
- Imago Dei
- The Pearcey Report
- Tim Blair
- Powerline
- Opinion Journal
- Life Site news
- Cox and Forkum
- Scrapple Face
- Creation Safaris
- Telic Thoughts
- Right Reason
- Parableman
- Intellectuelle
- Stand To Reason Weblog
- Post Darwinist
- The Pandas Thumb
- He Lives
- Creation Safaris
Sitemeter
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.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Comments:
<< Home
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
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)
<< Home
