Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)
Do Leftists know what the word "hypocrisy" means, or is it simply a way for them to name-call without actually calling someone an obscene name? The false accusations of "hypocrisy" leveled at me over my opposition to banning e-cigarettes in "public places" certainly indicate my critics have not looked up the word in the dictionary. I did, and here is what Merriam-Webster has to say:
- a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not
- behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
Neither of those applies to what I have said about a ban on vaping in "public places."
No, calling for limited government in this case is not inconsistent with supporting legal restrictions on abortion. This is because abortion actually kills an innocent baby. Exposure to second-hand vapor from an e-cigarette does not kill anyone. Even if it irritates someone, irritation is light years different from killing someone. The chemicals found in e-cigarette vapor are in much smaller amounts than tobacco smoke. It simply does not rise to the level where government needs to step in to protect anyone's rights.
Furthermore, people have a choice about whether to patronize a business that allows electronic cigarettes (which are not tobacco products and do not burn anything) or whether to work at such a place. Unborn babies obviously have no choice in whether to be killed by dismemberment, burned to death in a saline solution, or killed by having their brains ripped out and skulls crushed. It is silly to say I am a "hypocrite" for supporting a ban on abortion but opposing a ban on vaping.
I am also not inconsistent for opposing same-sex "marriage." I have never said the government should not allow people should to live as they please in private. I have said I oppose government recognizing the union of two men or two women as a "marriage." If the government did not legally recognize and officially endorse such unions as a "marriage," that would not prevent anyone from doing anything not otherwise prohibited by law. There is no restriction on liberty or behavior here.
Finally, unless someone is an anarchist (and no one is), everyone is going to draw a line where they think government should regulate behavior and where it should not. This is not hypocrisy. This is the way people work: They have different opinions on different issues. We can all be adults here and recognize this reality without spewing fraudulent accusations of "hypocrisy."
Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.
- A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.
- This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.
- Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.
- You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.
- Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.
Thank you for your cooperation.
, Josh Washman said...
The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution requires that as long as marriage carries legal benefits (lower tax rates, communication privilege, etc) it should be available to all couples regardless of orientation. Nobody - NOBODY - wishes to require religious institutions to ordain marriages against their belief. But blocking access to lower tax rates to a same-sex couple that is every bit as committed, loving, peaceful, and law-abiding as an opposite-sex couple is discrimination.