ellauri039.html on line 768: Edward Morgan Forster OM CH (1 January 1879 – 7 June 1970) was an English novelist, short story writer, essayist and librettist. Many of his novels examine class difference and hypocrisy, including A Room with a View (1908), Howards End (1910) and A Passage to India (1924). The last brought him his greatest success. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 16 different years.
ellauri097.html on line 103: Such turns of phrase evoked the erudite cynicism and rapier sharpness of language displayed by Ambrose Bierce in his darkly-satiric The Devil's Dictionary. A noted curmudgeon, democratic in subjects attacked, Mencken savaged politics, hypocrisy, and social convention. A master of English, he was given to bombast and once disdained the lowly hot dog bun's descent into "the soggy rolls prevailing today, of ground acorns, plaster of Paris, flecks of bath sponge and atmospheric air all compact."
ellauri156.html on line 465: When Uriah arrives in Jerusalem, he reports to David, who acts out the charade he has planned. He asks Uriah about the “welfare of Joab and the people,” and the “state of the war.” It troubles me that David needs such a report at all. If he were with his men in the field, this would not be necessary. But even worse, David does not really care about Joab, the people, or the war. David's one preoccupation is to cover up his sin, to get Uriah home and to bed with his wife, and thus to get David off the hook. How sad to read of David's hypocrisy. The king who had compassion on the crippled son of Jonathan now lacks compassion for the whole army, and specifically for Bathsheba and her husband Uriah.
ellauri156.html on line 477: The servant-spies come to David in the morning with an amazing report: “He didn't do it. He didn't even go home!” David then seeks to gently rebuke Uriah. The hypocrisy of David's actions and words are hard to accept. But accept we must, for Dave is Dog's favorite horse on whose nose he is betting his bottom dollar.
ellauri236.html on line 210: One ought not to infer too much from the success of Mr. Chase's books. It is possible that it is an isolated phenomenon, brought about by the mingled boredom and brutality of war. (LOL) But if such books should definitely acclimatize themselves in England (or Nigeria!), instead of being merely a half-understood import from America, there would be good grounds for dismay. In choosing Raffles as a background for No Orchids I deliberately chose a book which by the standards of its time was morally equivocal. Raffles, as I have pointed out, has no real moral code, no religion, certainly no social consciousness. All he has is a set of reflexes the nervous system, as it were, of a gentleman. Give him a sharp tap on this reflex or that (they are called ‘sport’, ‘pal’, ‘woman’, ‘king and country’ and so forth), and you get a predictable reaction. In Mr. Chase's books there are no gentlemen and no taboos. Emancipation is complete. Freud and Machiavelli have reached the outer suburbs. Comparing the schoolboy atmosphere of the one book with the cruelty and corruption of the other, one is driven to feel that snobbishness, like hypocrisy, is a check upon behaviour whose value from a social point of view has been underrated.
ellauri408.html on line 382: Speaking of hypocrisy, it’s ironic that the Christian religion turned Jesus, who saved all his sternest criticism for religious hypocrites, into the greatest HYPOCRITE of them all! The Good Samaritan was a man who put aside religious differences to help a man of another faith who was unable to help himself. But Jesus, who was able to save the thief on the cross with a mere nod of his head, will hypocritically not deign to nod his head at billions of people who are unable to save themselves, according to Christians who blaspheme Jesus’s name from sunup to sundown. What will Jesus say when they have to stand before him on the Day of Judgment and explain why they accused him of such evil?
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 90: Henry Ward Beecher had publicly denounced Woodhull's advocacy of free love. Outraged at what she saw as his hypocrisy, she published a story titled "The Beecher-Tilton Scandal Case" in her paper Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly on November 2, 1872; the article made detailed allegations that America's most renowned clergyman was secretly practicing the free-love doctrines that he denounced from the pulpit. Woodhull was arrested in New York City and imprisoned for sending obscene material through the mail. The scandal split the Beecher siblings; Harriet and others supported Henry, while Isabella publicly supported Woodhull.The first trial was Woodhull's, who was released on a technicality.
xxx/ellauri229.html on line 156: Someone asked the Rabbit “Is whataboutism always fallacious?“ Here’s my reply: Bringing up someone else’s hypocrisy across cases is not fallacious in and of itself. It’s fallacious if the hypocrisy is irrelevant to their being alt-right.
xxx/ellauri387.html on line 213: Immediately following the September 11 attacks, Guillou caused controversy when he walked out of the Göteborg Book Fair in the midst of the three minutes of silence observed throughout Europe to honour the victims of the attacks. In an article in Aftonbladet, Guillou argued that the event was an act of hypocrisy, stating that "the U.S. is the great mass murderer of our time. The wars against Vietnam and its nearby countries alone claimed four million lives. Without a minute of silence in Sweden". He also criticised those who said that the attacks were "an attack on us all" by stating that the attacks were only "an attack on U.S. imperialism".
9