Is this basically: Why label someone an hypocrite when by doing so one could be the hypocrite themselves and yet it makes no sense to believe that one is the hypocrite?
OR
is this interpretation closer to the truth:
why do; when we believe there's a thing we think that the opposite of believing doesnt agree with our opinion, but when we think that the opposite does agree, people say we dont agree with what we believe, but do we really believe what we think is our definition of opposite of opinion or do we believe that we dont think because thinking is not the opposite of being contradictory to believing?
Why act, when we have a thought that we are unsure of whether or not it acts within our opinion, but when it is in our opinion but not in our thought, people think they notice inconsistency and speak up;
Do we really believe what we think is our definition of opposite opinion towards a subject?
Do we really think that A is the definition towards B and thus being a complete opposite of what B is, even though B might as well be A?
Or do we believe that we don't think because thinking is not opposite of being contradictory to believing?
This is either double negative or.... triple negative or.......
Do we believe that (Not thinking; act) is not A but is definitely not B and thus doesn't have not to be juxtapositioned between the two?
