I see. Perhaps you weren't trying to discount his contempt, but your argument left room for it to be interpreted that way. It seemed you were attacking his contempt, while I was suggesting he incorporate some tact. You seem to depend a lot on people inferring your points from your examples, and it can seem ambiguous to those who don't understand your angle.
So to clear up confusion, and I know you've already stated this, but exactly what information is Pad ignoring? How exactly is he being hypocritical. What standards is he holding others to that he is not living up to himself? I am not necessarily saying you're wrong, just asking you to be more concise.
The overall point that is seeming to be expressed in the last few pages of this thread is, maximizing the rationality of the greatest numbers of our fellow citizens is not necessarily the best way to maximize their (and our) well-being. While there is some truth to this statement, I do not see it as reason to accept erroneous conclusions and put them on the same level as truth. To risk making a slippery slope argument, the people in the matrix were pretty content, it was great for their well-being.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick