08-09-2008, 12:58 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 580
|
I did, but only for a moment. The thread's title had me concerned that Lavell and, who knows? Sherri Dew? Elaine Michaelis? Anyway, once I realized it was only a politician, I felt a mild sense of relief and went back to not caring.
|
08-09-2008, 01:53 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
He said that to make it his wife feel better. "Honey, I was just horny. No love, I swear."
__________________
太初有道 |
08-09-2008, 03:22 AM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Jordan
Posts: 1,725
|
Quote:
If we conclude that people do care, the natural follow up question is should people care? I believe affairs are made relevant when the person having the affair is also publicly proclaiming their own virtue. Hypocritical politicians (redundancy alert) are notorious for claiming virtue and then being shown to be less than virtuous. I'm not saying that Edwards specifically falls into this category - I don't know enough about him to make that claim - I'm just pointing out a certain class of affair that is indeed relevant to the public. An affair also shows something about a politician's honesty. An affair by its very nature is a dishonest, secretive act. People can and should expect the utmost in integrity/honesty from their politicians. Thus, I conclude that affairs are indeed relevant to the public where politicians are concerned. Summary: - Do people care? Debatable but evidence indicates they do. - Should people care? Given the nature of politicians/politics, yes. |
|
08-09-2008, 03:33 AM | #24 | |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
|
08-09-2008, 03:57 AM | #25 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
BFM, what are we to make of McCain's widely acknowledged affairs?
I'm sure virtually all GOPers including yourself will forgive him if forgiveness is defined as choosing to vote for the man. I brought up the affairs to my bro-in-law. He said so what, are you aware that Obama is going to raise taxes on people making over 200k? It sounds like Edwards is in therapy. Did McCain ever sort out what caused him to cheat? Other than she was fat and disfigured? |
08-09-2008, 05:29 AM | #26 | |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
Quote:
Welcome back, Mike.
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
|
08-09-2008, 06:55 AM | #27 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
08-09-2008, 08:23 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
That is true.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
08-09-2008, 05:00 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Jordan
Posts: 1,725
|
Quote:
I don't know the specifics of McCain's affairs. In terms of general principles I have the following thoughts about any politician's affair: - Did the politician lie and attempt to cover it up after it was exposed to the public or did the politician humbly acknowledge, apologize, and accept the consequences? - Was the cover-up/lie/affair facilitated by the politicians public office or the use of public or election funds? Were they abusing their office? Was there anything illegal going on? - Any other special circumstances? e.g. Did the person abandon their spouse? etc. For me, none of these questions are a single "basis on which to choose a president" (SU's words). Individually, they are just one among many other issues to consider. They are decision factors that speak to a politician's integrity and judgment but not necessarily to a politician's position on economy, environment, national defense, states rights, etc. We're basically just talking about importance here. As many have already pointed out, the "morality issue" is a rational basis on which to rank a candidate. In other words, the importance of morality > 0. It would be irrational to conclude otherwise. The real question then is "How much weight should the morality issue be given in relation to other decision factors?" That's a very difficult question to answer. I'm sure that for some people it is of utmost importance and thus becomes a single "basis on which to choose". For me, it probably ranks somewhere in my top 10 but not in my top 5. Thus, if two candidates were equal in terms of higher priority issues then I would add the morality issue to the equation. If two candidates are separated on my high priority issues then the morality issue is less relevant to me. Thus, to answer your specific question, I would probably forgive (in the sense you defined it) McCain because of the differences between him and his current opponent on my top issues. Also, the answer your BIL gave seems to indicate that he is also ranking morality lower among his issues. |
|
08-09-2008, 05:01 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Jordan
Posts: 1,725
|
As I stated above, I don't believe they are a "bad" basis, just a less important basis. They become more important if higher priority factors are equal.
|
Bookmarks |
|
|