In addition to Slimething's comments...
Your hypocrisy is against reason. You use it when it suits you yet you're not governed by it. For what ever reason a person is destroyed it's not a reasoned response to enjoy it. That enjoyment is a waste of time and serves no reasonable purpose; it is self serving. Further, when you exaggerate your case against Hovind comparing him to Capone you seriously cross the line of rationality. There is no comparison between the illegal activities of Capone and Hovind.
You haven't demonstrated that it is hypocrisy in any way. You are implicitly arguing that being skeptics, "reason" denies us the right to hold any opinions, to have emotions, and to express them. How sad that you have such a limited understanding of skepticism and skeptics. Meanwhile, your whole argument now has no base - work on it.
Incidentally, Al Capone was jailed on tax evasion charges. So was Hovind. But nowhere did I say that made Hovind a murdering gangster. Why don't you read what I wrote, and not what you believe I think.
Further it's not reasonable to appeal to the rule of law in Hovind's case yet accuse him of fraud concerning his degree. Patriot Bible University is authorized by the State of Colorado Higher Education Commission to issue religious degrees. You might not think it's a degree of much value yet you cross the line of reason to deny it being a valid degree and further cross that line by denying the state of Colorado has the right to decide it's laws yet insist the federal government has that right with regards to tax law.
Why is that not reasonable? Would you go to a doctor who turned out to have bought his degree from the same shyster as Hovind did?
Incidentally, Patriot University is NOT recognised anywhere in the USA as a degree-conferring entity. That's been confirmed many times over. Do your research!
Ultimately you don't answer to reason or civil authority unless it suits you. If you would argue, as some atheists do, that there is no right or wrong, that those are value judgments, then it would be unreasonable to expect there was hypocrisy in you. When there are no boundaries it's unreasonable to expect that someone could cross them. That's a very convenient philosophy. Yet since you argue that society has any right to punish anyone, you then must concede that there are some things right and some wrong. There are indeed boundaries. I don't disagree. Moral authority in addition to the authority of reason and also civil authority have boundaries. When you reposition those boundaries where they suit you you’re only pretending they exist.
Gene
Wow, talk about inventing strawmen and hitting them with a flamethrower! Wrong right from the start: I
do answer to reason and civil authority, whether it suits me or not. In many practical situations, that has been the case. Thing is, Hovind didn't answer to either, so there he sits in his cell...
And I'll let you keep guessing (because that's all you are doing) if I am an atheist or not. Because until you know for sure, your arguments are pretty much baseless. Consider for a moment: Would you have a different argument if it turned out I
was a believer?
Sorry, Gene - you are barking up entirely the wrong tree here. As I said above, I'm pleased Kent Hovind is no longer scamming and bilking people with his home-grown brand of senseless rubbish. And I would have thought that you would be pleased that skeptics were actually taking the side of the oppressed - in this case, the naive Christians who donated to and worked for his crooked schemes, and ultimately whom Hovind defrauded.
Want to rethink your position?
