John Edwards had an extramarital affer (rolling eyes)
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
''I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."
-John Edwards, in 1999 regarding Bill Clinton's moral lapses
_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon
GoatOnFire
Veteran
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,986
Location: Den of the ecdysiasts
There goes any chance Edwards had of running in '12 or beyond. I would have thought that if someone wanted to risk ruining their political career they would have at least done it with someone like a Hollywood star a la JFK. And from what I've heard from her on the news, his ugly mistress doesn't have a nice personality either, what was Edwards thinking...?
It didn't help that Mrs. Edwards has cancer, that made it more of a news story.
_________________
I will befriend the friendless, help the helpless, and defeat... the feetless?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
Then the bank would be wrongly authorizing a person to take from other account holders.
it's called a bank loan when the bank is consentual, iamnotaparakeet.
_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Then the bank would be wrongly authorizing a person to take from other account holders.
it's called a bank loan when the bank is consentual, iamnotaparakeet.
That's not robbing then: he pays it back with exponential interest. That's not what robbing is.
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
Then the bank would be wrongly authorizing a person to take from other account holders.
it's called a bank loan when the bank is consentual, iamnotaparakeet.
That's not robbing then: he pays it back with exponential interest. That's not what robbing is.
duh!
_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Then the bank would be wrongly authorizing a person to take from other account holders.
it's called a bank loan when the bank is consentual, iamnotaparakeet.
That's not robbing then: he pays it back with exponential interest. That's not what robbing is.
duh!
Bank loans are legal and within the contract of all account holders. For any married person to break the contract of marriage... how is that the same?
-John Edwards, in 1999 regarding Bill Clinton's moral lapses
I think this and the fact that he emphatically denied the allegations while campaigning are the heart of it. Those who can deal with the "sin" don't want to see the lies or hypocrasy. Quite a catch 22, really, because other people care about the "sin," which encourages the lies and hypocracy (given that so few of those in power can actually resist temptation). I preferred the days when no one knew enough about candidate's private lives to care. When we have to toss out everyone who has a moral weakness or two, we aren't left with a lot of great candidates with the smarts where they are most needed.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
-John Edwards, in 1999 regarding Bill Clinton's moral lapses
I think this and the fact that he emphatically denied the allegations while campaigning are the heart of it. Those who can deal with the "sin" don't want to see the lies or hypocrasy. Quite a catch 22, really, because other people care about the "sin," which encourages the lies and hypocracy (given that so few of those in power can actually resist temptation). I preferred the days when no one knew enough about candidate's private lives to care. When we have to toss out everyone who has a moral weakness or two, we aren't left with a lot of great candidates with the smarts where they are most needed.
Interesting corollary: only immoral people are intelligent.
-John Edwards, in 1999 regarding Bill Clinton's moral lapses
I think this and the fact that he emphatically denied the allegations while campaigning are the heart of it. Those who can deal with the "sin" don't want to see the lies or hypocrasy. Quite a catch 22, really, because other people care about the "sin," which encourages the lies and hypocracy (given that so few of those in power can actually resist temptation). I preferred the days when no one knew enough about candidate's private lives to care. When we have to toss out everyone who has a moral weakness or two, we aren't left with a lot of great candidates with the smarts where they are most needed.
Interesting corollary: only immoral people are intelligent.
Having an affair is not necessarily immoral.
-John Edwards, in 1999 regarding Bill Clinton's moral lapses
I think this and the fact that he emphatically denied the allegations while campaigning are the heart of it. Those who can deal with the "sin" don't want to see the lies or hypocrasy. Quite a catch 22, really, because other people care about the "sin," which encourages the lies and hypocracy (given that so few of those in power can actually resist temptation). I preferred the days when no one knew enough about candidate's private lives to care. When we have to toss out everyone who has a moral weakness or two, we aren't left with a lot of great candidates with the smarts where they are most needed.
Interesting corollary: only immoral people are intelligent.
That isn't what I said at all.
My thought process is this:
Only a small percentage of the population is smart and savy enough to effectively run a country.
A large percentage of the population has what can be perceived by many as a moral weakness or two.
When you cut out the later, the former is mathematically severely reduced.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
Having an affair is not necessarily immoral.
It is considered to be by a majority of the population.
Morality is a relative concept. Majority rulings on morality are called law. Adultery is no longer illegal so the majority must not consider it immoral.
I'm assuming that the majority has a morality when the laws are ratified.
Having an affair is not necessarily immoral.
It is considered to be by a majority of the population.
Morality is a relative concept. Majority rulings on morality are called law. Adultery is no longer illegal so the majority must not consider it immoral.
I'm assuming that the majority has a morality when the laws are ratified.
I would like to think that we do not legislate morality when it is, essentially, a personal matter. There was a time nations regardly did legislate personal morality, but the prevailing opinion now is that personal freedom trumps legislation in many areas that still are, essentially, questions of morality. You have the freedom in the USA to act in ways the majority considers immoral. The simple fact that it isn't legislated is a statement about a belief in personal liberty, not a statement about what people consider moral or immoral. If you live only by what does and does not break a law, you are not holding yourself to the same standard as the majority, at least as stated by the majority in studies and polls.
I think you really take a leap to say that just because adultery isn't illegal, the majority must not consider it immoral. I'm still surprised by that leap. There are many, many things that fall in between legislation and proper behavior. Things that I would not do, because I consider them immoral, but that don't cause enough pervasive harm to society for them to illegal. Or things that I consider immoral, but know I and most people are not strong enough to universally refrain from. For which I do not want to impose my standard of morality onto everyone else. I don't even always want to impose it upon myself. But it is a goal, a best way, just not always THE way. A law must reflect what almost everyone considers abhorrent; and not only abhorrent, but harmful. Morality is personal. Legislation is much more universal and concensus based. The considerations are quite different.
Shoot, some things are illegal even though most people would not consider them immoral. Speeding, for example. In a vacuum, it isn't wrong. It is illegal because of the potential for harm, the high probability of accidents, and the simple fact that no one drives in a vacuum.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
-John Edwards, in 1999 regarding Bill Clinton's moral lapses
I think this and the fact that he emphatically denied the allegations while campaigning are the heart of it. Those who can deal with the "sin" don't want to see the lies or hypocrasy. Quite a catch 22, really, because other people care about the "sin," which encourages the lies and hypocracy (given that so few of those in power can actually resist temptation). I preferred the days when no one knew enough about candidate's private lives to care. When we have to toss out everyone who has a moral weakness or two, we aren't left with a lot of great candidates with the smarts where they are most needed.
Interesting corollary: only immoral people are intelligent.
Having an affair is not necessarily immoral.
Extramarital affairs are always immoral, out of necessity.
-John Edwards, in 1999 regarding Bill Clinton's moral lapses
I think this and the fact that he emphatically denied the allegations while campaigning are the heart of it. Those who can deal with the "sin" don't want to see the lies or hypocrasy. Quite a catch 22, really, because other people care about the "sin," which encourages the lies and hypocracy (given that so few of those in power can actually resist temptation). I preferred the days when no one knew enough about candidate's private lives to care. When we have to toss out everyone who has a moral weakness or two, we aren't left with a lot of great candidates with the smarts where they are most needed.
Interesting corollary: only immoral people are intelligent.
Having an affair is not necessarily immoral.
Extramarital affairs are always immoral, out of necessity.
So morality is absolute again? Really? From where does one derive their morality? A contradictory two thousand year old book? The laws?
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
my eyes hurt when im agitated |
29 Feb 2024, 3:51 am |
Worms Do Not Have Eyes, But An Amazing Sixth Sense |
11 Mar 2024, 4:48 pm |