While there is common sense to your argument, and I understand the point, it removes any sense of righteousness of the argument; it is a rhetorically weak standpoint. Those that are truly ideologically against something will choose to suffer rather than to partake in it. Ie: do you respect a vegetarian who claims that meat is murder, but if presented with no vegetarian options will choose to compromise their beliefs and eat meat rather than suffer from the inconvenience of skipping?
In other words, if you are not willing to suffer for your beliefs, then they are beliefs only lightly held in a superficial way. I do not begrudge a person making use of services they disagree with due to necessity and also to the fact that they have already been enrolled in it against their will, but for anyone to claim that they are truly against it is compromised to a massive degree. It is understandable hypocrisy (and we are all hypocrites about something at some time in our lives), but it is hypocrisy nonetheless.
~Jason
edit:
There is a difference between saying that the food isn't that great and still eating it and saying that fast food is a demon in our society that needs to be exorcised and still frequenting Wendys. The argument against these socialist issues isn't that they aren't great and need improved, but rather they need to be completely removed.
See this is why some people (particularly liberals) have such a hard time with these things. Who cares about "ideological purity"? What idiot is going to say no to the government giving them back what was rightfully theirs in the first place?
A hypocrite is one who acts contrary to their stated opinions and beliefs. This is quite the opposite. I'm more than happy to actively game the system to the extent that it is legal to do so, just so that I can prove how screwed up the system is in the first place. I am completely upfront about it, and my behavior is completely consistent with my political beliefs.
Such so called "ideological purity" is for fools.
Last edited: