He has? Didn’t he get sued by Jeffery McDonald for using deceptive practices with McDonald? (Admittedly, McDonald is not what you might want to call a sympathetic plaintiff, having been convicted of murdering his family). But McDonald sued McGinnis saying that the author had lied to him in order to work with him and gather material. I’m not sure I’d agree that that is “responsible journalism.”
And IIRC McGinnis settled the suit without a verdict, paying money to avoid a trial.
Case went to trial. Jury deadlocked 5-1 in McDonald’s favor. McGinnis settled out of court before a retrial. (A quick summation from ‘Great American Trials,’ p. 694)
No, it isn’t. It’s hypocritical to preach against a behavior one is currently indulging in, not a behavior one has done in the past and learned to regret.
Does the fact that I was a bully in high school mean that I cannot now oppose school bullying?
I do not know if the stories are true. I really don’t care either. Her personal life is none of my business. It is her hypocrisy and politics that I object to. I can never forgive her for quitting as Gov. That can not go away.
It means that if you do oppose school bullying, you should do so with the admission that you were once a bully. Telling people “you shouldn’t do X, Y, and Z, and I should know, because I did those things and it was ruining my life before I realized how bad they were and stopped” is a powerful form of messaging. Telling people “you shouldn’t do X, Y, and Z” and leaving off mention that you used to do them yourself is hypocritical.
I agree that it would be hypocritical to preach against a certain behavior WHILE continuing to indulge in it, and I will further say that one’s preaching is more likely to be effective if one admits to one’s own past misdeeds in the area. But I don’t see how it’s necessarily hypocritical to keep one’s own counsel, as long as one is not actively lying.
This is key. The sins themselves don’t matter, it’s the washing-away and the appearance of piety that do. Perversely, more sins often help bolster the image, and the more prurient, the better.
A former whore/thief/liar/homo/gangbanger/junkie who buddies up with Jesus, now there’s a success story to warm the heart and strengthen the faith. Who gives a shit about Joe or Jane Average who’ve somehow managed to live a decent, non-destructive, boring life all along?
I rise to condemn and deplore snarky, sarcastic posting! It has been several hours since I have seen the light, and since that time have not weakened in my resolve. Please keep your admiring congratulations effusive but brief, as befits my modesty and humility.
If this post causes a bus with the Constitution painted on the side to show up in front of your house, don’t come crying to me.
I can see an argument that a term like self-serving or misleading might be more appropriate. But I think the argument is that if one condemns a particular behavior without owning up to having done the same thing, one invites condemnation of people who are engaging in it while ducking any measure of that same condemnation (even if it’s a smaller measure).
Since the OP has been banned, I’m closing this thread. If anyone wants me to reopen this thread, please send me a private message or email - although I think the best option would be to open a new thread in any event.
