Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Inspired by responses in the somewhat inauspicious Al Gore power consumption thread, I came to wonder how hypocrisy is viewed and what is done or not done about it.
Hypocrisy is basically professing or promoting beliefs contrary to ones actions or practices. Many systems of belief, such as religions, decry hypocrisy at least to some degree or in regards to specific examples, but their practicioners will still engage in the practice.
The question then, is how you deal with it within the context of logical thought? Or to whatever form of cogent thought you ascribe to? It is fallacious to dismiss positions outright on the sole grounds that it's proponents are hypocritical via poisoning the well. But it doesn't seem reasonable that a free pass should be granted either, and that the source of those ideas should be questionable and put under higher scrutiny.
For example, suppose you have a hypocritical environmentalist who drives around in SUVs and wastes a lot of electricity, and suppose you have a evangelical who is very religious and to some degree judgemental but skips out on the "thou shalt not commit aldutery" commandment (or any appropriate strength religious tennet of your choice). If you are a environmentalist or a evangelical yourself, is one more ok than the other because they are more alligned with your world view? What about if they start actively promoting those positions?
Is it then hypocritical to give some hypocrites a pass while decrying others? Or is it ok if the ends are justified?