I think we will all agree that each and everyone of us has some degree of tazaad in qaul aur fael. Its just that some people are a bit too vocal so the tazaad is very obvious. Others are more subtle and stay below the radar.
I can understand how they may dislike a concept or something yet they are unable to disentangle their own selves from contributing to it, but for pete's sake (who is this pete anyway?), don't be so friggin' preachy about it then.
How this is hypocrisy? I don’t see anything wrong with it. Do you mean to say only those who show up in rallies or send letters to media have a right to speak against the war?
Do you think sitting in drawing room talking on the topic with bunch of OTHERS or posting on a BB is NOT a form of dissemination of information/opinion/exchange?
scenarios 1: A guy working for interest based company badmouths interest. Context: You should not bad mouth what you practice yourself in action. Makes sense.
scenario 2: A guy shouts rabid anti war naaray but doesn't go to an anti war rally. Context: He shouldn't shout what he doesn't follow up with action????
but i guess in broader terms you statement is true as well, statements should be supported by actions, to some extent, to whatever extent is possible but effort is needed.
Oh so basically those people have lost their credibility. I see.
Talk is cheap but it can also be very effective sometimes. Haven't you heard about the epidemics of information and how it can change the course of the history?
true, but at some point in time talk has to accompany action, if not by the talker, then by the listener, if we are all just talkers and listeners and no one takes any action then it will be a vicious circle of intellectual jacque-ov