House of Eratosthenes

Hypocrisy does not mean “Establishing a standard for yourself and then failing to live up to it.” There is a different word for that: It’s called being a human being. Or at least a human being who does, in fact, attempt to better herself and set goals and maintain a standard of conduct.

Anyone who sets goals for himself will fail. And what is the alternative?

Hypocrisy is, instead, proclaiming a series of values and vindictively using those values to chastise others for failing to live up to them, all the while gleefully violating them yourself.

Has Prejean done this? I don’t remember a single statement she made about sexual modesty. The only thing I remember her saying about sex at all wasn’t even about sex, per se, but about marriage, and that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Bull’s-Eye.

When the day comes you catch wind of the fact that Carrie Prejean has married a woman, go ahead and give me a call.

Actually, even then don’t expect to find me too terribly interested. Lest anyone forget — Carrie Prejean did not raise the issue of same-sex marriage. Perez Hilton did that. Ms. Prejean simply answered the question that was put to her. After Mr. Hilton brought it up.

Who asked him, anyway?

I have a short list of people who have no business whatsoever judging, or imposing criteria upon, Miss America contestants — or any contestants in any other contest dealing with feminine beauty. I’m thinking children; eunuchs; straight women; gay men.

I’m not entirely sure about the eunuchs and the straight women.

And this is certainly not intended as an insult, either. Do you know how many women have approached me, over the years, about “do you think I should wear these pumps or those sandals?” and I look at them all perplexed, and say “you’re asking me?” And yet the question-mark-pockmarked assault continues. Do these shorts make me look fat. Thread count in the bedsheets. Eggshell or off-white. Oneida or Noritake.

Specialties, folks. All specialists to their specialties. Can’t believe it has to be said, but…when a decision is to be made about which young lady looks best in a bathing suit, this is what straight men are for — and a straight man is what you want. Best looking in an evening gown: Ask a straight man. Singing: Straight man. Talent: Straight man. Sexiest walk: Straight man.

Perez Hilton had as much business there as a pig has in church. It’s not a discriminatory statement. It’s just a fact.

Back to the subject at hand: Yes, we need to revisit what exactly hypocrisy means. It’s not a catch-all trap for you to use against people who have upheld, or embraced, or advocated some standard you personally find unappealing. There has to be an actual contradiction taking place. One set of rules for yourself and a higher one for others. Without that, the H-word has no meaning within that particular situation.

Gotta admit, Ace nailed it with that one.

Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and again.
- rob | 11/13/2009 @ 19:28
That IS a bullseye. This “hypocrisy” tactic is Alinsky rule #5, pretty much a direct application thereof. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” This rule has, heretofore seldom been turned on them. Sowell recently succinctly pointed out:

An e-mail from a reader says that liberals like to take the moral high ground, even though their own moral relativism means that there is no moral high ground.

People who have no clue what what Christianity is really all about should not be allowed to pontificate authoritatively on the subject. They should be called on it.

Rule #4 is: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” — This is why I started blogging. I found myself too often blindsided by things outside of my sphere of knowledge. But I suspected, and I was right, the person blindsiding me was reading from a script (or making things up) and also talking outside of his sphere of knowledge. But without real knowledge on my part, there was no way for me to call him on it and live within my standards (not making things up or saying things I don’t know to be true). This is how they “got” me a lot. It is much harder for them to do now

Rules 4, 5, and 6 are the ones they use the most often, 6 being: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” (and a favorite because of Rule #7 : “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” … it makes them feel “smart”)

Knowledge is the best counter to all of this, because most of them cannot live up to rule #3: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” (Stick with what you know).

Read up, people.
- philmon | 11/14/2009 @ 07:53
Ace is a frat boy?

You learn something new every day, I guess.
- philmon | 11/14/2009 @ 07:59
People who have no clue what what Christianity is really all about should not be allowed to pontificate authoritatively on the subject. They should be called on it.

Precisely why I do not accept criticism of my Christian walk, from nonbelievers. I don’t appreciate people who’ve never so much as read a page of Matthew or Mark (much less affirming the divinity of Christ), presuming to tell me what Jesus would or would not do, say, or think about something in my behavior. This is one consistently annoying pet-peeve that I run into again and again when witnessing to people.

I always want to respond, “Gosh, golly-gee. You’re right. I mean, it’s not like I’ve been following Jesus, worshiping in church and studying the Bible my whole life or anything. What the hell do I know? You’re right – let he who is without sin cast the first stone. How dare I say that some behavior is morally unacceptable?” And I’d like to follow that up with, “Hey, while we’re on the subject – and I know that’s the liberals’ favorite Bible quote – why don’t you crack open The Good Book and read the rest of that passage? You know, ‘go and sin no more’?”

(On that same note, when discussing terrorist acts, who are we “infidels” to sit around debating what is or is not “true Islam?” How the hell would we know the difference?)

It’s like a car mechanic lecturing a surgeon on replacement of a heart valve. Sorry to ramble, but Morgan kind of reminded me of something that REALLY burns my toast.
- cylarz | 11/15/2009 @ 02:54
It’s funny how we’re always getting this moral lecturing, from a bunch of people who don’t believe in an unchanging, fixed-point-of-reference moral code to start with. Not an original thought on my part, but a profound one.

I have also noticed that the Left isn’t particular interested in hypocrisy on its side of the aisle – Congress exempting itself from the health reform package it just passed, Al Gore selling carbon credits while jetting around in a private plane and living in a huge mansion, Michael Moore turning out one anti-capitalist screed after another while profiting from that very capitalist economy, John Kerry claiming a few months of 30-year-old Swiftie experience counts in the fight against terrorism…but 4 years’ current experience sitting in the Oval Office directing a war on terrorism doesn’t, Obama too many examples to mention.
- cylarz | 11/15/2009 @ 03:10
On that same note, when discussing terrorist acts, who are we “infidels” to sit around debating what is or is not “true Islam?” How the hell would we know the difference?

I’ve known several Muslims. Even had 3 Muslim room-mates one summer. And the Muslim girls that lived next door used to cook sweet things and bring them to me. Salma, I believe her name was. The one I think had a slight crush on me. Plus I work with several Muslims still today.

They seem like nice people. ( I do have to keep al taqiyya in the back of my head, though. )

Here’s the deal on that “true Islam” bit. There is another bible quote, “By their fruits you will know them”. Now I believe that every major world religion has has violence comitted in its name. Wheat and tares together sown, and all that.

Over the years Christians have rationalized violence in the name of God. But it takes a pretty big stretch of rationalization, and it’s been effectively and publicly rejected by the various Christian factions over the years — at least the use of violence as a means to spread the word of God. The difference between “shake their dust from your feet” and the subjugation of infidels under Sharia laws often held up as proof of “tolerance”. But in the end, if they just believed that and didn’t act on it where I am concerned… fine. I won’t tell you what you believe. But when you kill in the name of Allah while saying you are killing in the name of Allah … I’m gonna take your word for it, whether others think it is “true Islam” or not.

Islam has been fairly consistent about that over the years, using some pretty explicit-sounding Koran passages to back them up.
- philmon | 11/15/2009 @ 11:25

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Ace on “Hypocrisy”Friday, November 13th, 2009

Ace on “Hypocrisy”
Friday, November 13th, 2009