>Matt wrote:
>>
>>Not necessary, and yes John and Shag made good points. I guess what I
>>[poorly] was trying to convey is: our political adversaries do not see
>>the contradiction/hypocrisy/double-standard.
>>
>>Deep down, they know ab-only is not effective. But it displays the
>>appearance of prudish morality, and that is what matters. The truth
>>of facts like pregnancy rates, and even personally experiencing
>>unplanned pregnancies, does not distract from the "Truthiness" they
>>know in their guts.
>>
>>IOW, no "Aha!" moment for them, so it is politically pointless to point
>>out.
>>
>>
>>Matt
i completely agree with you there. but then, the assumption here is that the audience are believers. i don't think the audience of taunts such as "oooo, what hypocrits" are the believers, any more than the taunts Palin hurled last night at Obama -- which basically boiled down to, "Oooo. He's a hypocrit and so are the believers!" -- were intended to change Obama or his followers.
I'm not sure who they reach but I _do_ know this: when people pointed out the contradictions of similar kinds of thinking to me in the past, it got me to open my eyes and stop unthinkingly engaging in, approving of, and/or tolerating that kind of thinking. And that, of course, made me start paying more attention to the kinds of people who sparked that wonderful "Aha!" moment for me -- coz I wanted to get me more o' that.
I know. I know. It's hard to believe. But shag was not sprung from the head of Zeus a fully formed radical leftist! 'magine that!
shag
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)