Hypocrisy:
There is no way to win with those most prone to holler “Hypocrite!” because, as Godel proved, there is no such thing as a non-trivial, perfectly consistent set of rules. A lot of folks will never be satisfied because they are hell bent to press beyond practical limits. So there will always be outbreaks of "hypocrisy." You can no more satisfy the hole in these folks' souls than you can satisfactorily answer a child's perpetual question, "Why?" And when you let instances of “hypocrisy” collapse your rule of practice, then, figuratively, you just facilitate a closer slouch towards Gomorrah (usually by anti-establishment leftists).
IMHO, it is not hypocritical to try to maintain standards. What is far more insidious and dangerously hypocritical is to pretend that objective perfection for enforcing rules is possible or even desirable. Complainers tend to embody the reason for the injunction: Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. (Classic example: tottering American system of arcane and indecipherable rules of legalese, now built up within a thick jungle of greedy, jealous, and conflicting regulatory bodies. We got here because many secular perfectionists actually believe legal utopia is possible.)
One needs to pursue consistency so far as is practical, while still enforcing lines for defending civil discourse. But we will often fail, unavoidably.
This is all the more true for a forum for the controversial exchange of ideas. A lot of folks see Blog rules as a red flag, and they are hell bent to deconstruct them. So rules will not be preserved by constructing a perfectly objective system of exceptions upon exceptions, because no such a system exists. In the end, it comes down more or less to a child's acceptance of judgment of a "parent."
While I personally agree with “Second Amendment Sentiments,” there are other forums for fleshing those sentiments out. Any actual incitement “to arms” is hardly to be served at any Blog that hopes to preserve a lasting public forum for civil exchange of ideas.
One could reply to a complainer that we do the best we can, and then cite to Godel. Let him prove Godel wrong, without being a hypocrite.
There is no objective source of completeness or consistency. To get completeness, one must punt to subjective choice and decision (i.e., a Parent who says, "Because I said so"). Even then, there may be completeness, but not perfect consistency or coherence. But there is meaning, interest, and caring.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In death, all particular perspectives of consciousness must eventually become collateral damage from the unfolding purposes of the field of consciousness. Our material world is not the best of all possible; we are only its gardeners, always pursuing communion, and perhaps eventual merger, with a happier state of being.
7 comments:
Is it "hypocritical" to try to maintain any standard? If we equate "hypocrisy" to license to do anything, then can decent civilization survive? After all, what rule or norm of society is immune from being deconstructed for hypocrisy by any marginally intelligent anarchist? If consistency is the sine qua non for justifying any rule, then let deconstructionists take on Godel, without themselves being shown to be hypocritical.
That which is inexecrable must be spoken. Else we become zombies, walking through a landscape filled with ravaging dogs, wondering who produced this landscape and who benefits from it. Dinos and Rinos have already been trained to answer to their masters' siren signals, calling them to be harvested. MSM and academia are now just the medium for the Dems' siren message. So funny I forgot to laugh.
*****
How not to diminish world population while increasing the supply of servants: Guilt the middle class into having fewer children, then open borders to make room for illegals to come and perpetuate their families ... and get it all paid for by American taxpayers. This "strategy" will not only increase rather than reduce the world's population; it will also transition populations to become less literate and more malleable to those who control the misdirecting media and the transference of fiat money, which is also taxed to ordinary Americans. It all gets back to wiping out the middle class, so as to burn bridges by which ordinary citizens could ever challenge their new masters.
A.T.: Re: "Dictatorship in a one-party state indeed seems to loom for us. As one prominent commentator has pointed out, the normal order of the human condition is tyranny, subjugation, and dictatorship, with only a couple of respite periods throughout history, including our time in the West over the past two centuries or so. It just took that long for the totalitarian types to gain near-total power in our country, which they are now consolidating over the coming year. What are the betting odds that they will ever let it go voluntarily?"
....
A.T.: Re: "The most troubling aspect of my analysis is that it represents the logical extension of irrefutable, objective facts. At least five of the six premises are no more and no less than observable Democrat behavior, and the other is a mild extrapolation at most. This is not good."
*****
Re: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/understanding_the_democrats_sc.html
Well, from a Conservative perspective, we have long lacked real representation, since bi-political elites, regardless of whether Dino or Rino, have long been undermining the idea of a nation that honors a middle class of independent, free thinkers. They have long been laying means for finishing us off. It is only recently that substantial numbers have finally figured out the alignment. It does not matter whether the alignment has been consciously conspiratorial or not. Forces that produced it have long been guiding it.
I think it is not too late to salvage the fundamental ideal that is embodied in America. However, the challenge, and the danger, are at least as great as what confronted us leading up to 1939. We will not survive this challenge by accepting leadership from utopian or hippie profs, assorted libtards, or conniving wise guys fronting ravaging dog packs.
Here's the scheme: When Obama’s minions talk, “Give them the wealth!” they’re not talking about taking away from plutocrats. Plutocrats know how to take out bi-political insurance. If anything, Soros and Immelt expect to profit from Obama’s schemes. No, what "spread the wealth" means is take from the middle class until there is no longer a middle class --- just serfs and lords. That is, no one is to remain who has any hope of standing against the lords. This is what Rinos want; this is what Dino followers are too stupid to realize is what they will get. Either that or, like Ivan, Dinos would rather have no goat at all if that's what it takes to ensure Boris doesn't get one either.
*****
There is to be a Federal manual for imposing uniformity for traffic control devices. The aim is salutary, since uniformity in rules of the road is of fundamental importance to safe travel. But each State has heretofore retained sovereignty to prescribe in what circumstances it may be liable in tort under its own laws to persons who are injured on roads it maintains. A serviceable argument for resolving this dichotomy has been for some States to interpret the Federal requirements as requirements for federal funding purposes, but not as requirements for which deviation would necessarily make federal law trump in order to force States to impose tort liability on themselves in their own courts.
This is not insignificant, because various States may each have hundreds of thousands of accidents on their roads each year. But are Feds now fixing to horn in and require States to waive their sovereignty and make themselves liable in their own courts under their own laws for every deviation of a requirement to be imposed by Feds under the Federal manual? And are similar schemes being planned for other Federal regulatory bodies, to force State treasuries to be liable to their residents for violations of all manner of Federal regulations? What schemes are being planted in Health Care Reform, that may require States to lift protective caps on liability of State hospitals and medical personnel therein employed?
Given Pelosi style transparency, does anyone trust what the lobbyists for trial attorneys are up to? Aside from other nefarious aspects of Obama-change, I fear we may be fixing to get a big dose of "Tort Reform" all right. In reverse. At what point do these top-heavy schemes get "unconstitutional enough?”
A thinker would independently and empathetically respond to God or Higher Ethos; a thinker would resist against forced worship.
But the Islamic call to prayer and jihad is a siren call to masses, to condition them to unwittingly honor their servitude to Imams and Mullahs.
And the Socialist call to "communal rights" is a siren call to Americans, to condition them to unwittingly surrender freedom of conscience to ruling Elites.
Independent thinkers are being swept along, as cattle around them are being conditioned and lured to the scent of false water.
Mullahs and Elites have monopolized media for broadcasting their sirens.
They are united in not wanting any fence by which to defend a haven for middle class freedom.
They are too busy using mind parasites to condition us for virtual corrals, from which no non-elite can escape.
Elites would have us be cattle, not even pets.
Their villainous faith is the "nothing buttery" of survival and reward for the most ruthless and deceptive.
For them, intellectual honesty is for wimps, and he who trains the most slaves wins.
When Europe falls, how shall America stand?
A.T. Re: "Why our leaders would lie to us as a means of encouraging Muslim immigration is a great mystery. In the case of President Obama, perhaps the mystery can be answered by learning why he sat at the feet of Rev. Wright for twenty years and, thereby, endorsed Wright's endorsements of Rev. Farrakhan."
Well, why do Dinos and Rinos both want open borders? The Dem base needs the State to take care of it and tell it what to do. It does not value freedom of thought. The Rino base does not value freedom for servants. Free thinking Conservatives are represented only if lip service is "representation." Conservatives have no leaders in D.C.
PROSTITUTION: I suspect it's better that hard up folks who lack social skills have such outlets, but I also suspect that such folks will indulge themselves even if civil fines are retained. So, really, is there a crying need for legalization? Once legalized, realistically, how are pimps, madams, pushers, and extortionists to be kept out of the trade? Once incentives are legalized for profiteering, what is to protect innocents from being further pushed? In the face of expansive, private, profit-motivated advertising, how is government reasonably to regulate prostitution, without in some people's eyes blessing it and adding respectability to the pusher crowd? And won't the biggest profiteers be lobbying legislators with the big bucks? Well, regardless, if Stewart, Maher, Behar, and Maddow were to say it's cool, that will be enough for the Left. But who really thinks we will hold the line very long at legalizing prostitution for wholesome adults? I think the issue needs to be looked at as objectively as possible. Are there societies that have legal prostitution that have been able to hold respectable lines? If so, how, and how long?
MUSLIMS -- A.T. -- Re: "CAIR really doesn't CARE about the woman in the lawsuit. It cares about spreading Islam."
Progs really don't care about America. They care about spreading Marxism. Cair and Progs: There is no reasoning with them; there is only defeating them and rendering them irrelevant.
COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL REFORM -- A.T. -- John P said, "laws can only govern a lawful people." Yup. Every time Progs fail, they come back with their new Acme Comprehensive Legislation. But you can no more make outlaws respectable by passing laws than you can fly by tugging at your boot laces. We need a new Sheriff to round up these bad boys.
Post a Comment