Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi
So you're calling Tiger Woods "inept" because he fucked a heap of women..
|
Well, that would be an ineptitude in Tiger Woods character. Not because of any absolute moralistic taboo he has broken, but because there is an incongruency (discrepancy) in what he has done. Marriage is a social (and legal) contract, fortunatley for him I guess, that adultery is not illicit at this time within America.
Back to the point, Tiger woods did break a vow, a promise, a
devotion, which was made to his wife before his family, freinds and God. So, is it inept to break a promise? Is it dishonourable to break your word, and not be a man of your word?
Yes, hypocrisy is a form of ineptitude.
That is the answer to your question, however it was not my original point. In the original context, I was simply using Tiger Woods as a person who people have/are paying attention to misapropriatley. I was using the recent current events surrounding him as an analogy... That it is inappropriate for so many people to consider it such a big deal that the arguably number one golfer in the world had sex with twelve women who weren't his wife.
His vocation is golf, not austerity! Similarly, Dawkins vocation is biology, not theology. Hence it is inapropriate to consider Dawkins an expert on God... ameebas maybe.
* On a related note, the incongruety which occured/ is occuring regarding sex within the Catholic church is something worth highlighting, more so than the Tiger Woods thing. Both incidents share similarity, but I would say the Catholic church thing is more serious. Not because I hate religious organizations, or because I subscribe to some sort of nihlistic sexual amorality, but because the Catholic church ande there preistly class make it their
vocation to 2 billion people not to fuck boys. Whereas Tiger Woods made a
devotion to his wife not to fuck ladies.
Plus its not his job, cover it once... we don't need to see that shit everyday for a month.