If someone were addicted to drugs, played video games all day, and orbited transsexuals, but he proselytized against gay people, accusing them of living a degenerate lifestyle, would that invalidate his arguments? Or would it just strengthen them, since he had experience living that type of lifestyle?
>>18115208People will just project their moral beliefs and use anything they think they can portray as a "moral failing" as an excuse to call me a hypocrite regardless of whether I said or believe that it's morally wrong or not. I've never believed or said that it's morally wrong to play video games, watch porn, fantasize about women, but you try to call me a "hypocrite" for things like that because you're retarded.
>>18115208i bet she would love wearing a skirt and doing the twirly thing, since she sure does seem to think about it a lot. she would probably get a euphoria boner and her tiny dick would be rock hard
>>18115208>why is more hypocrisy considered a bad thingprobably because its really hard for somebody to take your moral seriously if you can't even be bothered, sure there is more to getting others to agree to your moral beyond just practicing them, but that part is such a basic bitch first step that failing it pretty much will get most to rightfully filter you out
>>18115208>Person has a history of drug abuse, worked hard and suffered to break out of that, and now talks against doing drugsThis person has a credible and strengthened position on the subject. They might not always be right, but it's generally going to be worth listening to what they have to say. >Person still does drugs, plays videogames all days, lusts after trannies, etc, but 'proselytizes against gay people' (did you forget that the word 'criticizes' exists OP?)the lusting after trannies part would suggest that this person is in fact gay themselves, making them a hypocrite. Their criticism of homosexuality is less credible as a result of that.
>>18115208Yes. Because his arguments aren't strong in actual moral decency, his arguments are strong in the fact of being a piece of shit.
>>18115208If he condemns his own lifestyle too, then it would not be hypocritical, since he would not be above his own criticism. But it would definitely weaken his own argument. It's like tankies condemning capitalism while selling ebooks for profit. I get your anti-capitalist argumentation, but the fact you cannot seem to live it in practice suggests that the idea isn't all that realistic.
>>18115208>Why would that invalidate his arguments?I'm going to answer that question with another question. Why should I take his morals seriously if he keeps demonstrating he doesn't take them seriously himself?
>>18115208It doesn't. The argument is good or bad on its own, regardless of who said it.>>18115616He might take them seriously but still be incapable of improving himself. In different degrees, everyone is hypocritical and everyone fails to reach his own moral excellence
>>18115724>He might take them seriously but still be incapable of improving himselfI suffer not the weak philosopher.
hey guys what if bad things are actually goodcan you prove bad things are badle you cannot invalidate my argumenttherefore good things are bad and also bad things are good, logicallyI'm the most philosophical kid whose gut rolls brush against every door frame I walk throughI'm so fucking smartunnngh
>>18115208Would you take diet advice from a 600 pound man?
>Loser Creep ChaseDamn, what’d that dog do?
>>18115953You ignore everything Nietsche or Seneca said?
>>18115208It would certainly weaken them. How can you argue against something you yourself indulge in? There would be no reason to take you seriously, you would have no integrity. If you want to live that lifestyle thats fine just dont throw any stones.
>>18115208when i was in rehab they told us about this doctor used to work there that helped a lot of people and gave loads of lectures about addiction and alchoholism, the point being everione knew dude was alcoholic and died of liver failure
