Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7
Results 121 to 128 of 128

Thread: Weiner's wiener

  1. #121
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,217
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Weiner's wiener

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    From Reference.com:

    An individual is complicit in a crime if they are aware of its occurrence, have the ability to report the crime, but fail to do so. As such the individual effectively allows the criminals to carry out a crime despite easily being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities thus making them a de-facto accessory to the crime rather than innocent bystanders. Law relating to complicity varies. Usually complicity is not a crime although this sometimes conflicts with popular perception. See The Finale (Seinfeld episode). At a certain point a person that is complicit in a crime may become a conspirator depending on the degree of involvement by the individual and whether a crime was completed or not.
    Since you are citing complicit as its criminal definition, what crime was committed?

    We have both agreed that Weiner was responsible at some level, the entirety of my point being that an apology was not completely unwarranted.
    Sure, not unwarranted. But not necessary either.

    There was plenty of outrage over the other scandals. What prompted me to craft this debate, specifically, was to delineate what I thought to be the worst of his actions - the lying to avoid the consequences of his actions. I can't tell you how many people (who, sadly, were all split on party lines) said it was no big deal at all, yet these were the same people who went on the attack for every Republican who ever had a scandal for being a hypocrite. There is plenty of outrage, on both sides, against both sides.
    Yet, Vitter, Craig, Kyl, Rangel, and I think Jefferson all kept their jobs. So either there is a double-standard, or there wasn't enough "outrage" by the public or media. Again I ask: what crime, in the legal sense of the word, was committed?

    Pride can be a funny thing like that. I know that if I were ever in the same situation that I could know an apology was warranted and at the same time not want to give it. But I would recognize that the right thing to do would be to give it, whether or not I actually did. So, a "forced" apology does not necessarily have to be insincere. Yes, he was asked directly "Do you apologize to Breitbart," and it very much looked like he did not want give that apology by name, rather repeating his apology to everyone (notionally, Breitbart included). Then he must have realized a by name apology was warranted, because he delivered one, and he has not recanted.
    I can agree that he delivered one, and without further information, can agree (*choke cough gag*) the apology was sincere.

    The information that I was forwarding was being collected by me. In effect, I was the source. I would most definitely get blamed for bad information, and the consequences of that bad information would be on my head. This is why journalists and intelligence analysts both like to have at least two independent sources to verify facts. Now, on the battlefield, you work with what you've got, so you don't always have the luxury of multiple sources nor the time to exhaustively cross-check.

    Suppose I report that a column of Iraqi armor is moving eighty clicks to the south-west, and our forces pull out of their defensive positions to meet this threat. Right after they move, the camp they were guarding gets suicide-bombed. If I provided the bad intel that caused the action.... would I not be complicit in the camp getting bombed? Would I not share some of that responsibility for causing our troops to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
    I think a theater of war is different that talking about what amounts to be a social scandal. Would you be criminally complicit? I don't think so, unless of course you lied. The difference here is that Gawker and DailyKos had zero evidence to blame Breithart, yet they did it anyway. Yet Breithart demanded an apologize from Weiner, not his accusers.

    But in this scenario, a culprit was actively searched for. Even if that wasn't Weiner's intent, it certainly was the natural result of his actions.
    To what end do we stop blaming people for the actions of others. Is Weiner's mother complicit because she gave birth to Weiner? Is Chuck Schumer complicit because he helped give Weiner his start in politics? Are his constituents complicit because they elected him? Did Weiner have any more knowledge of what Gawker would do than Weiner's constituents had of what he was doing?


    That is also true. I think all parties share the burden of guilt, and not even equally. The accusers themselves did the most wrong in my eyes. But this doesn't alleviate Weiner from his level of responsibility, in my opinion.
    Here is a question for you: What if Weiner had been telling the truth that he was hacked? Would that have changed the way Gawker and it's ilk behaved? Would they still have blamed Breithart?

    Some information is actionable, and some of it immediately actionable. Imagine if come stumbling out of a burning building, and just before I collapse on the sidewalk, I tell a fireman that there is a baby inside. That fireman is going to put himself at great risk of life or limb to find that baby. And if there isn't one? That would be putting him at risk for nothing. I don't know what would possess anyone to tell such a lie, but the point stands that some information requires immediate action, and bad information can have negative consequences.

    To put it another way, imagine if I run into your room at three in the morning at yell "The cops are here! Flush your stash!" If you flushed your stash, and then found out the cops weren't there.... wouldn't you blame me for flushing your stash? Again, some information is actionable.
    The core question though: Should I blame you for me quitting my job based on your lie? Would you qualify yourself as complicit in me quitting my job?

    I have not interpreted a single question asked by you to be loaded. However, I still do not want to set the precedent of answering demands for specific delivery, especially not for yes or no answers. In a recent string of argument in this thread, I am being challenged to answer a question with a yes or no, and doing so ultimately dismisses half of the entire point. If I answer yes, that puts the burden on me to support a new claim, and if I answer no, that gives credence to my opponent's argument that this somehow means something significant to the debate, tacitly agreeing that this point actually has some merit and allowing the dialogue to continue in that specific vein. Only by answering with a statement can I avoid the negative repercussions of of directly answering the question in the manner demanded.

    In court proceedings, the prosecution asks their own witnesses open-ended questions, and the defense witnesses yes or no questions. The defense does the opposite. ODN, however, is not a court of law, and there is no prosecution nor defense. There is no onus to comply with such demands for specificity. And again, I never accused you of asking trick questions; I am merely hesitant to set the precedent of allowing such combative techniques to be demanded and expected. A series of yes or no questions can effectively back an argument into a fallacious corner of the questioner's design. No one here has a responsibility to be subservient to any question or questioner.
    I understand your position. But if someone asks a loaded question, just tell them that it is a logical fallacy to do so. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

    In my view, the precedent that could be set is that you will answer legitimate questions and not answer questions that are fallacious rather than answer no questions in this regard at all. But I do recognize and appreciate your time and candor and am certainly not trying to tell you how to debate.
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  2. #122
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,699
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Weiner's wiener

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    YOU DID NOT ANSWER YES OR NO. I DEMAND THAT YOU ANSWER YES OR NO.
    But it's not a yes or no question. My question was a yes or no question.

    When I ask you whether you know an answer to a question, you either do or you do not so how else can you answer that question directly besides Yes or No?

    You don't know if you know the answer to the question?


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Also, I did answer "I don't know" to your question
    I asked if you knew which of the two only possible options, 5 or 6, applied to Weiner. I didn't ask you tell me which answer applies - only if you knew which answer applies. And you did not respond with "I don't know". But I will accept that answer as meeting my challenge, if by that you mean that you are saying that you don't know whether 5 or 6 applies to Weiner (in effect a "NO" answer).

    Likewise an answer you DID give - "nobody knows" has to apply to you since there's no way you can know if nobody knows. So that likewise equates with a "No" answer as in "No, I do not know if 5 or 6 applies to Weiner because nobody knows".

    So unless you rebut my thinking on this as incorrect, I will conclude that my question has been answered and although you technically did not meet my challenge with a YES or a NO, my challenge has been met. And then I do owe it to you to answer ONE more of your challenges (and will answer further ones if they are preceded by your answering another challenge of mine). I will meet you one-for-one, not one-for-three (you aren't forwarding that one of my challenges is worth three of yours, are you?).

    But first I want to confirm that my previous challenge has been met. So again, I am correct in my above thinking regarding how the answers you gave addressed my question and therefore my challenge, right? Or have you not met my challenge?
    Last edited by mican333; June 25th, 2011 at 01:19 PM.

  3. #123
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,201
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Weiner's wiener

    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy View Post
    Since you are citing complicit as its criminal definition, what crime was committed?
    A crime is not necessary to warrant an apology. However, my quote from Reference.com outlines how the word "complicit" can be used. It is not specifically limited to crimes.

    If you trip over my shoes which I left in the middle of the floor, I am certainly complicit in your tripping. I may not have intended that you trip, nor wished to cause you any inconvenience whatsoever, yet you would not have tripped over my shoes had I not left them in an inappropriate place. I would likely apologize to you for inadvertently causing your tripping (as long as you weren't being a dick about it, hahah).

    Sure, not unwarranted. But not necessary either.
    True, it was not necessary. Weiner did not have to apologize, to anyone, but he eventually did so.

    Yet, Vitter, Craig, Kyl, Rangel, and I think Jefferson all kept their jobs. So either there is a double-standard, or there wasn't enough "outrage" by the public or media. Again I ask: what crime, in the legal sense of the word, was committed?
    Vitter was questioned about his contact with a known madame, and immediately the next day admitted to his infidelity as well as his illegal actions. It was past the statute of limitations, so no criminal charges were brought, and as such (I agree, through technically) he is not guilty of a crime. His actions differ in that he did not lie about it. In fact, he came right out and admitted things he was not even accused of yet. He also made a plea to the media that he wished to deal with this matter involving his family at the family level, and that he had already ask for and received counseling and forgiveness. And while some in his own party offered support or outright forgiveness, other Republicans wanted to censure him, namely Sam Brownback. There was plenty of outrage in the Vitter case, that continues to this day. He has been called to resign after several other scandals involving other public figures, such as Elliot Spitzer, John Ensign, and even over the Weiner affair. In spite of all this, his local fundraising efforts and voter approval remained unaffected.

    Interestingly enough, the loudest calls for Vitter's resignation came when a Democratic Governor would have been able to appoint a replacement until a special election could be held. In all of the other cases I have researched, the resigning politician would not have been damaging their party's standing by their resignation, allowing the opposition party to appoint a temporary replacement.

    Larry Craig entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor, and then retracted the plea citing that he was trying to resolve the matter quickly. While I don't think anyone bought this, he used this as an excuse to clear his name in the Senate Ethics committee, which he stated he could only do if he was still a Senator. A few days after the scandal blew up, he announced his intent to resign in thirty days, and then retracted this four days later, citing wanting to clear his name. He did not run for reelection.

    Throughout this entire time, though, there was plenty of outrage and calls for his resignation. He was even highlighted in a documentary-style film called Outrage, blasting him (and other conservatives) for taking anti-gay stances and then being involved in a gay sex scandal. The difference, again, is that he did not out-right lie and then retract. He did something just as bad, don't get me wrong, but it is slightly different to admit guilt and then claim innocence citing your original plea was not well informed, than it is to claim innocence and then definitively come clean. While Weiner's was the more noble act, his guilt is unquestionable on any level.

    Rangel was censured by the House, which is the most severe punishment a Representative can receive short of outright expulsion from Congress. He lost his Committee Chair (which is one of the most, if not the most powerful committee). His "crimes" (some of them actual crimes, like tax avoidance) were all matters of ethical behavior. If anyone should have resigned, I believe that should have been Rangel. He is the third-longest serving member in Congress, yet his seniority is no longer recognized anywhere. He is essentially an ineffective representative. I would absolutely love to see Rangel step down or to be forced out. What he did was reprehensible, much worse than anything Weiner did, in my opinion.

    Still, though, none of that has any effect on Weiner's actions. I think his coming clean and then stepping down were noble actions. I never called for his resignation, and in the OP I stated that a recall would be a drastic move, yet people should vote him out next election, citing a lack of integrity and potential exposure to extortion. He is guilty of no crime, but I think there are plenty of other reasons why his district would be better served by someone else.

    I think a theater of war is different that talking about what amounts to be a social scandal. Would you be criminally complicit? I don't think so, unless of course you lied. The difference here is that Gawker and DailyKos had zero evidence to blame Breithart, yet they did it anyway. Yet Breithart demanded an apologize from Weiner, not his accusers.
    Weiner was the source of original deception. He made it possible for others to accuse an innocent person (irrespective of who that person may have been). A theater of war is very different than this situation, but the point is that some information is actionable. In some situations, it would be irresponsible to not act on certain information before exhaustively vetting it. This probably was not one of those situations, yet that is exactly what happened as a result anyway. Actions were taken as the result of Weiner's deception. I call the accusations themselves a greater wrong, but Weiner was complicit as far as allowing it to happen in the first place, and for allowing it to continue for eleven days.

    To what end do we stop blaming people for the actions of others. Is Weiner's mother complicit because she gave birth to Weiner? Is Chuck Schumer complicit because he helped give Weiner his start in politics? Are his constituents complicit because they elected him? Did Weiner have any more knowledge of what Gawker would do than Weiner's constituents had of what he was doing?
    This legal theory is called Proximate Cause. If I am a teacher and I hold you after class to discuss a paper (with your grade hanging in the balance... you don't talk to me about this paper, and you will receive negative consequences), and this makes you late for work (another negative consequence), I am not to blame for you speeding to get to work and the subsequent accident you got into, because I am not the proximate cause of the accident; you are. The actual onus of responsibility would be on you for your actions, not on me for giving you a reason to choose your actions. However, I could be found complicit to the situation. While not legally liable, there is undoubtedly some level of responsibility on me for your situation, no matter how small. To extend this scenario, I could hate you as a student and want to see you fail out of the class. I could know that you have just enough time to get to work after class, and I intentionally hold you after in order to force you to make a decision - do poorly in class, or do poorly at work.

    Weiner knowingly lied about things which he knew to be his own actions. Again, if a real legal investigation had developed over the supposed hacking, he could not be held legally complicit, that is to say, he could not be found guilty of being an accomplice in the accusal of an innocent man, but he could be cited with obstruction of justice for withholding information pertinent to the investigation.

    While not legally complicit, he is most definitely complicit in the sense that he is to blame on some level. I could be complicit in starting a bar fight, while not actually throwing any punches. I could be complicit in getting an alcoholic to start drinking again by pressuring him to take a drink, even though I did nothing to actually force him to drink. All peer pressure is a form of complicity, while no laws actually need to be broken (although, legal complicity is the active encouragement or aid to a guilty party in breaking the law).

    Here is a question for you: What if Weiner had been telling the truth that he was hacked? Would that have changed the way Gawker and it's ilk behaved? Would they still have blamed Breithart?
    They very well could have (and probably would have) still blamed Breitbart. They accused him when they had no evidence (because none existed). I don't doubt for a second that would happen again even if evidence did exist, before they were privy to any such evidence.

    But if Weiner really was hacked, and claims as much, I can't see how that would represent any wrongdoing on his part. If they blamed Breitbart anyway and it was not Breitbart, I could not find any blame on Weiner for that. However, Weiner knew it was not Breitbart, because he was the guilty party himself. That is how this is different.

    The core question though: Should I blame you for me quitting my job based on your lie? Would you qualify yourself as complicit in me quitting my job?
    In certain situations, such as the lottery/job anecdote, I would find any subsequent actions to be irresponsible if not vetted. I suppose you could blame me, but a great majority of the stupidity would lie with you I would think. In other situations though, I think the person initially reporting the information has the natural expectation to be believed. For example, if you shouted "FIRE" in a crowded theater when no fire existed, and several people were trampled, I would not find anyone in the crowd guilty for not vetting that information, nor for acting in a panicked manner. I would find you guilty of inciting panic, however.

    ---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But it's not a yes or no question. My question was a yes or no question.
    My question was as much of a yes or no question as yours was. It had "yes or no" right in it, just like yours.

    When I ask you whether you know an answer to a question, you either do or you do not so how else can you answer that question directly besides Yes or No?
    You set up this erroneous point to attempt to pin me into a concession - that if I answered "no" that would automatically support your position that nobody can know what other men would do, and that this lack of knowledge somehow supports the notion that his replacement could be worse.

    I have repeatedly stated, many, many times over, that the actions of other men are not related to Weiner's previous or future actions. The fact that any other man could potentially do anything has no bearing on the things Weiner has already done, nor on what Weiner is likely to do in the future.

    I properly answered your questions with "NOBODY KNOWS," because that is the ultimate truth at the root of the problem. Nobody knows what potential actions are inevitabilities, yet you and I have already agreed that Weiner's past actions are indicators for his future actions. We had a debate going on about that at one time, about specific actions and what that could mean for the future, but you hijacked the debate with this one ultimately failed point, ducking my challenges and refusing to address any other points.

    You don't know if you know the answer to the question?
    I answered the question. If you did not understand my answer, I suggest you pick up a 4th grade reading primer. It was not a difficult statement to interpret, yet you accused me several times of not answering the question.

    Likewise an answer you DID give - "nobody knows" has to apply to you since there's no way you can know if nobody knows. So that likewise equates with a "No" answer as in "No, I do not know if 5 or 6 applies to Weiner because nobody knows".
    So you agree that I did answer the question. Please retract your previous statements that I did not answer it.

    So unless you rebut my thinking on this as incorrect, I will conclude that my question has been answered and although you technically did not meet my challenge with a YES or a NO, my challenge has been met.
    I did rebut your thinking. Several times. Your conclusion is invalid. You have not addressed this rebuttal.

    I did not have to meet your challenge with a YES or a NO. I did give it an answer, and you have admitted as much.

    And then I do owe it to you to answer ONE more of your challenges (and will answer further ones if they are preceded by your answering another challenge of mine). I will meet you one-for-one, not one-for-three (you aren't forwarding that one of my challenges is worth three of yours, are you?).
    My challenges preceded this point, and any subsequent points. They all stand as rebuttals to positions of yours (those positions even appearing in the challenges themselves). If you do not answer my challenges, I will consider them conceded until you address them.

    But first I want to confirm that my previous challenge has been met. So again, I am correct in my above thinking regarding how the answers you gave addressed my question and therefore my challenge, right? Or have you not met my challenge?
    You are stalling. You have already said I met your challenge. You have confirmed this yourself. Yet, you do not reply to any of the previous challenges issued, nor the rebuttal to your failed argument.

    If you are only going to reply to one challenge, I will accept your automatic concession on the other two, as I will not address any more of your challenges until you deal with what is already on the table.

    Here they are again. Go ahead and pick one (and concede the other two):

    I Challenge to support a claim. to reconcile your statements that some similar actions are equivalent (stealing a candy bar and a soda, lying about a dress and meatloaf), but some others are not (lying to avoid the consequences of specific actions are significantly different than lying to avoid the consequences of other specific actions). You have agreed there is little difference between stealing a candy bar and stealing a soda, since the object of said action is the theft of a small item. You have agreed that lying to your wife about her dress is no different than lying to your wife about her cooking, because the object of said action is to boost your wife's self-confidence. Show how lying to avoid the consequences of a sex scandal is any different than lying to avoid the consequences of any other scandal.

    Further, on this point, tell me what you think the difference is between stealing a candy bar from a store, and stealing a bagel from the honor bar at work. If you can show how the two situations are fundamentally different, I will accept it as an argument worthy of rebuttal. If a man is caught shoplifting at a store, is he to be trusted with the honor bar at work? Why, or why not?

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to show how your contrived figure of "possibly 50%" of men possibly acting the same way in the same situation makes any sense whatsoever. Your claim is that there could possibly be a large number of men who would do the same thing, while on the flip side, it is entirely possible a small percentage of men would do the same thing, or nearly all men would do the same thing. All your scenario has done is given a range, [0, 100], and since the range is nothing-to-everything, what on Earth does that have to do with this debate? Further, if you can somehow create a logical argument for why this contrived argument has any value at all, how does this apply to choosing our Representatives? Would you not wish to elect someone who would be in the potentially "better half" of the sample?

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to point out the difference between a bus driver of 25 years getting a DUI on his personal time and a Congressman lying and blaming others on the record for things that he knowingly did in his personal time. You seem to think that driving is integral to a bus driver's career, so if he did it on his personal time, that should count against his profession record. Yet, when it comes to representing constituents, you don't think that scandalous behavior that takes time away from representation, nor being caught red-handed in a lie (after lobbing accusations, no less), does anything to the professional integrity of the Representative. Why is that? Why do you weigh the two situations with difference scales?

    Since you did technically answer the one challenge, I will let that matter lie until it comes up again in the argument (which it most definitely will, since you did not address the facts presented and only gave me your opinion instead).
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  4. #124
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,699
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Weiner's wiener

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    I properly answered your questions with "NOBODY KNOWS," because that is the ultimate truth at the root of the problem. Nobody knows what potential actions are inevitabilities, yet you and I have already agreed that Weiner's past actions are indicators for his future actions.
    I only agree with that in the most specific sense - as in he is more likely than the average guy to do the exact same thing in the exact same situation and that's it. If you are forwarding that Weiner will take different bad actions that are directly related to his jo, such as lie to his constituents or take a bribe or do anything other than cheat on his wife (or in future relationships) and lie about the cheating if confronted, then I do not agree and you need to support that he is more likely than others to commit bad actions related to his job while in office.

    If you can't support that he is more likely than anyone else who holds, or could hold, the position of Congressman, to do bad actions in relation to his job, then there is no reason to think that he is unfit for his position.

    And of course, you've admitted that you don't know when you said "Nobody knows". That is right, btw. Nobody knows if his actions regarding the cheating reveals that he is a man who is unfit for Congress. So the claim that he is, be it from you or anyone else, is clearly without support. It's little more than a wild guess.

    The fact that some people believe that he is unfit so strongly that they are interfering with his ability to do his job and will even force him to resign does not mean that he cannot competently and with the appropriate amount of integrity perform his duties if allowed to. A boss can fire a competent employee because he mistakenly thinks the employee is incompetent and he has that right, but it does not mean that the employee is actually incompetent.

    So I will take you answer of "nobody knows" as an admittance that you do not know if Weiner's actions reveal that he is unfit (in competence and/or character) to be a Congressman (for that is the only logical conclusion). And likewise I will consider my challenge addressed.

    So I owe you one more challenge address.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    My challenges preceded this point, and any subsequent points. They all stand as rebuttals to positions of yours (those positions even appearing in the challenges themselves). If you do not answer my challenges, I will consider them conceded until you address them.
    But I did not agree to having to answer multiple points prior to it being appropriate to you having to answer any of mine. I mean if you made a million challenges, it would be fair to say that I have to address every one of them before you have to answer ONE of mine? That would be ridiculous, of course. I think one-for-one is what is fair. So far I answered one and you answered two and I owe you one more.

    And as far as considering a challenge conceded until I address it, a concessions is when I concede a point. You considering a non-concession as a concession is like trying to cash in a losing lottery ticket. If you want to consider it a winner, you are welcome to but it means nothing to anyone else.

    But on the other hand, if we were to agree that an unmet challenge is a "concession until adequately addressed" (which means addressed on its terms as opposed to providing excuses for not answering it), I am perfectly willing to let that be a rule between us. So is that a rule between us?

    If you agree to that "rule", I will even address all three of your remaining points immediately and then make two more challenges that you need to address to be even or else those points are conceded (but after that, all challenges are one-for-one).

    Deal? And again, if you accept this deal, I guarantee that I will address all three of your challenges in my next post and will state that you can then consider any of those challenges, if not addressed, to be conceded by me.

  5. #125
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,201
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Weiner's wiener

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I only agree with that in the most specific sense - as in he is more likely than the average guy to do the exact same thing in the exact same situation and that's it. If you are forwarding that Weiner will take different bad actions that are directly related to his jo, such as lie to his constituents or take a bribe or do anything other than cheat on his wife (or in future relationships) and lie about the cheating if confronted, then I do not agree and you need to support that he is more likely than others to commit bad actions related to his job while in office.

    If you can't support that he is more likely than anyone else who holds, or could hold, the position of Congressman, to do bad actions in relation to his job, then there is no reason to think that he is unfit for his position.

    And of course, you've admitted that you don't know when you said "Nobody knows". That is right, btw. Nobody knows if his actions regarding the cheating reveals that he is a man who is unfit for Congress. So the claim that he is, be it from you or anyone else, is clearly without support. It's little more than a wild guess.

    The fact that some people believe that he is unfit so strongly that they are interfering with his ability to do his job and will even force him to resign does not mean that he cannot competently and with the appropriate amount of integrity perform his duties if allowed to. A boss can fire a competent employee because he mistakenly thinks the employee is incompetent and he has that right, but it does not mean that the employee is actually incompetent.

    So I will take you answer of "nobody knows" as an admittance that you do not know if Weiner's actions reveal that he is unfit (in competence and/or character) to be a Congressman (for that is the only logical conclusion). And likewise I will consider my challenge addressed.
    I do not admit that "nobody knows" is relevant to your point about Weiner's actions and his fitness to remain in Congress. It is not a logical conclusion in the slightest, because your point is arguing for the potentiality of every other living, breathing person on the planet. The facts that you continue to dodge are Weiner's own actions. If you want to compare his actions with those of others as some sort of benchmark, look at all the other Congressmen - Not every Congressman (or even close to a majority) has done the same things as Weiner. Their continued fitness is related to their behavior as well and, more specifically, their lack of bad behavior. What other Congressmen have cheated on their spouse in such an idiotic way? What other Congressmen have directly lied (and eventually admitted the truth), thereby harming their own integrity? What other Congressmen have drawn out the scandals caused by their very own actions and lack of integrity? There are some, but instead of comparing Weiner with them, you instead choose to compare Weiner with the unlimited potential of the entire male population of the planet. Why?

    Again, if the potential actions of any other man on the planet have anything at all to do with Weiner.... why would we elect any Congressman ever again? Potentially guilty until.... forever? Is that the way of it? Even in lieu of those already proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? This was the point that destroys your hypothetical. Weiner has already done wrong.

    So I owe you one more challenge address.
    No, what you owe me is either a retraction or a concession to those previous points which you forwarded as claims. Instead though, all you have provided is a continued argument on one solitary point that has been destroyed many times over.

    But I did not agree to having to answer multiple points prior to it being appropriate to you having to answer any of mine.
    Oh, but you did.

    Quote Originally Posted by ODN Rules
    Supporting Claims
    Any argument posited as the subject for debate, regardless of being a positive or negative claim, must be supported with evidence and logic. Failure to substantiate the claim may be viewed as trolling at the staff's discretion.

    For claims made within the thread that are related to the topic, they too must be supported. If not supported initially, but issued a Challenge to support a claim. to do so later, the claim must be supported or all subsequent, repetitive arguments will be considered to be an act of trolling.

    The principle is simple: "Make a claim, support it."
    My challenges directly address claims of yours. I did not forward the arguments within the challenges, but rather challenged the claims themselves which are your claims.

    I must consider these claims of yours to be conceded or retracted until addressed. If you continue to forward them without further support, however, you will be in violation of trolling. As it stands, your continued insistence on addressing this one point (while ignoring the others, which were challenges to your claims) could be considered an act of trolling; by ignoring the actual content of the debate (Weiner's actions) and only addressing one flawed hypothetical (and not even addressing the rebuttals to this flawed hypothetical), you are effectively stonewalling attempts on my behalf at encouraging debate-minded positive discourse.

    So, which is it? Are you retracting, conceding, or trolling per ODN's rules?
    Last edited by czahar; June 28th, 2011 at 07:48 PM. Reason: Removing red text.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  6. #126
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,699
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Weiner's wiener

    First off, just to make it clear or reiterate, my only concern regarding Weiner is whether he is capable of doing a good job as Congressman, whether the decisions he would make and the actions he would take while on the job would be in the best interest in his constituents.

    And I don't particularly care about the sexual stuff as that is his private life and not his work life and the notion that a guy who's not good in romantic relationships would be bad at his job as no support. In fact, I would consider JFK and Clinton to be a couple of examples of good leaders who apparently couldn't
    "keep it in their pants".

    But then you are focusing on the lie and I find that has a bit more traction but I don't think you've shown that it means anything specific that relates to his job and would reasonably give me reason to believe that he would do a poor job as Congressman.

    Again, I have provided a seven-point bit of logic that I believe shows that you do not know that lying in that situation means that he is unfit for congress. To repeat:

    1. Some men are not fit to be congressmen

    2. Some men are fit to be congressmen

    3. All men are flawed on some level

    4. So some men are fit to be congressmen despite being flawed

    5. But some men are more flawed than others in a particular way that makes them significantly less suitable to be congressmen than other men, and these men are not qualified to be congressmen.

    6. And men who are not more flawed than others in that particular way referred to in the previous point are not significantly less suitable to be congressmen than other men and therefore cannot be considered not qualified to be a congressman.

    7. Since you do not know whether point 5 or point 6 applies to Weiner, you likewise do not know if Weiner is more flawed than other men in a particular way that makes him less suitable than other men to be a congressman, and therefore do not know that he is not qualified to be a Congressman.






    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    I do not admit that "nobody knows" is relevant to your point about Weiner's actions and his fitness to remain in Congress. It is not a logical conclusion in the slightest, because your point is arguing for the potentiality of every other living, breathing person on the planet. The facts that you continue to dodge are Weiner's own actions. If you want to compare his actions with those of others as some sort of benchmark, look at all the other Congressmen - Not every Congressman (or even close to a majority) has done the same things as Weiner.
    I am not comparing actions, I am comparing their flaws. I agree that Weiner's lie reveals a flaw in his character. But as my points shows, whether his revealed flaw is unique to him in a way that shows that he is unfit to be a Congressman is not known. Again, he is either 5 or he is 6


    5. But some men are more flawed than others in a particular way that makes them significantly less suitable to be congressmen than other men, and these men are not qualified to be congressmen.

    6. And men who are not more flawed than others in that particular way referred to in the previous point are not significantly less suitable to be congressmen than other men and therefore cannot be considered not qualified to be a congressman.


    and if his actions do not reveal him to be one or the other, then you cannot claim that it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Their continued fitness is related to their behavior as well and, more specifically, their lack of bad behavior.
    I am only concerned with bad behavior that reveals that one is not fit to be a Congressman, not bad behavior in general.

    And again, if his bad behavior reveals that he is unfit for Congress, then point 5 applies to him. So is it your position that point 5 applies to him?



    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    What other Congressmen have cheated on their spouse in such an idiotic way? What other Congressmen have directly lied (and eventually admitted the truth), thereby harming their own integrity? What other Congressmen have drawn out the scandals caused by their very own actions and lack of integrity? There are some, but instead of comparing Weiner with them, you instead choose to compare Weiner with the unlimited potential of the entire male population of the planet. Why?
    Because all of those bad things you mentioned are not directly related to his job duties and therefore do not reflect on how well he does his job when allowed to do so, which is all that matters to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Again, if the potential actions of any other man on the planet have anything at all to do with Weiner.... why would we elect any Congressman ever again?
    Answered by these points:

    2. Some men are fit to be congressmen

    3. All men are flawed on some level

    4. So some men are fit to be congressmen despite being flawed



    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Potentially guilty until.... forever? Is that the way of it? Even in lieu of those already proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? This was the point that destroys your hypothetical. Weiner has already done wrong.
    But not the kind of wrong that proves that he is unqualified for Congress.


    And I will address your remaining challenges and offer a few of my own.



    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    I Challenge to support a claim. to reconcile your statements that some similar actions are equivalent (stealing a candy bar and a soda, lying about a dress and meatloaf), but some others are not (lying to avoid the consequences of specific actions are significantly different than lying to avoid the consequences of other specific actions).
    Sure. The more alike two actions are, the more likely that it is that doing one will indicate that one will do the other.

    Stealing a candy bar and stealing a soda is:
    1. stealing
    2. taking something consumable
    3. taking something inexpensive
    4. taking something that is commonly sold in grocery and convenience stores
    5. taking something that one can slip in their pocket
    and I'm sure I could name numerous other similarities but you get the idea by now I'm sure.

    And conversely if one were to compare stealing a candy bar and stealing a car, the similarity list would be much smaller and therefore one could not make the case that stealing a candy bar means that one is likely to steal a car.

    Now, lying about an affair is:
    1. Lying
    2. Lying about a sexual indiscretion
    3. Lying about something, that if know, could ruin a marriage
    4. Lying about something, that if know, could ruin a career

    And if we compare that to, say, lying to his constituents about supporting a project (a lie that would show that he is bad as his job), the similarities pretty much end at point 1.

    Now, I'm aware that I forwarded the on-the-job lie about lying to his constituents but then you've, as far as I know, have never provided an example of something he might do wrong while on the job that the lie in question should predict.

    So here's my first challenge in regards to this

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to provide an example of something that he would do wrong on the job that this lie would predict.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to show how your contrived figure of "possibly 50%" of men possibly acting the same way in the same situation makes any sense whatsoever.
    I retracted that argument a while back and instead made the same point using the 7-point logic.

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to refute the logic of the seven-point logic. And I don't mean argue that it's irrelevant. Even if it is irrelevant, if the logic is sound, it should be noted. I will take it is the logic is not challenged, then it stands as logically sound.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to point out the difference between a bus driver of 25 years getting a DUI on his personal time and a Congressman lying and blaming others on the record for things that he knowingly did in his personal time.
    Sure. A driver's job is to drive. A Congressman's job is not to avoid lying or avoid a scandal.

    A driver who shows that he can't be trusted to drive has shown that he cannot fulfill the basic duty of his job.

    I see nothing that Weiner did that shows that he cannot competently fulfill the duties of his job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    You seem to think that driving is integral to a bus driver's career, so if he did it on his personal time, that should count against his profession record.
    It's not whether he did it on his personal time or not. It shows that he cannot be trusted behind the wheel. PERIOD.



    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Yet, when it comes to representing constituents, you don't think that scandalous behavior that takes time away from representation, nor being caught red-handed in a lie (after lobbing accusations, no less), does anything to the professional integrity of the Representative. Why is that? Why do you weigh the two situations with difference scales?
    Because driving is the driver's duty.

    All the stuff that Weiner did does not show that he cannot perform his job competently if allowed to.

  7. #127
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,201
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Weiner's wiener

    mican, I want to start off by thanking you for returning the debate to its proper course and addressing the arguments laid out back on page two.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, just to make it clear or reiterate, my only concern regarding Weiner is whether he is capable of doing a good job as Congressman, whether the decisions he would make and the actions he would take while on the job would be in the best interest in his constituents.

    And I don't particularly care about the sexual stuff as that is his private life and not his work life and the notion that a guy who's not good in romantic relationships would be bad at his job as no support. In fact, I would consider JFK and Clinton to be a couple of examples of good leaders who apparently couldn't
    "keep it in their pants".
    As far as the sexting and notional infidelity goes, this behavior is contrary to public opinion and the opinions of the constituents. This is the very reason behind the lie, some of those consequences the lie was crafted to avoid. People, for whatever reason, do not like their representatives to be of a "lower moral standard," nor to engage in generally looked down upon or morally questionable behavior. This is simply the nature of politics.

    This is why being married increases your chances of election (how many single politicians have we elected?). This is why having kinds increases your chances of election (how many childless politicians have we elected?). People wish to identify with their representatives, and feel, you know, represented because of this connection. "They have a family? Well, I have a family!"

    Now, lets look at the word "scandal":

    scan·dal

    1. A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society: a drug scandal that forced the mayor's resignation.
    2. A person, thing, or circumstance that causes or ought to cause disgrace or outrage: a politician whose dishonesty is a scandal; considered the housing shortage a scandal.
    3. Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace.
    4. Talk that is damaging to one's character; malicious gossip.

    Disgrace. moral sensibilities. Outrage. Dishonesty. Damage to reputation or character. Immoral or grossly improper behavior. A scandal does not have to involve illegal activity, although illegal activity most certainly causes scandal. Weiner's actions were definitely scandalous, which directly translates to a loss of credibility among his constituents. This is what his lie was trying to avoid.

    But then you are focusing on the lie and I find that has a bit more traction but I don't think you've shown that it means anything specific that relates to his job and would reasonably give me reason to believe that he would do a poor job as Congressman.
    Not only was he unable to do his job due to the reaction his behavior caused, his lie prolonged this time of work inactivity. But on the lie itself, I find a person caught in a lie to be of questionable honesty, regardless of the lie. If I told my boss I was sick the Monday after Superbowl Sunday, but he heard stories around the water cooler of how much I drank the night before... is he going to believe me if I come in late and claim a traffic accident happened in front of me? He already knows I'm willing to lie to him, specifically to avoid the consequences of my bad behavior.

    Coincidentally, this happened to me once. I went out on a Thursday night when I was about twenty-two, and was so hung over the next morning I could not safely drive my car. I called my boss and told him exactly what happened, that I had too much to drink the night before and that it would be in everyone's best interest if I didn't come in that morning. Now, I faced some punishment over this (I was enlisted at the time), but once my penance was paid, my word was like gold - if I was willing to face certain punishment for telling the truth, yet I did so anyway, I was a man to be trusted. After my period of punishment, I was highly respected among my direct supervisors, for taking my lumps and getting on with it, and eventually the whole episode disappeared. Well, I also had to make sure I never made that same mistake again, but that was easy to do after my punishment.

    I was willing to face the consequences of my actions head on. Weiner, however, was not. He lied specifically to avoid the consequences of his actions, and thereby dodge the lesson that I learned in my mistake. While not explicitly laid out in any charter, a Congressman does have the onus of remaining relatively scandal free. Otherwise, how could a Congressman get on with his work? We've seen what Weiner's scandal did to his ability to do his job. A representative does not go to Washington to tell us what we should or should not care about; a representative is there to represent their constituents. Weiner himself knows this fact, and knows that people react negatively toward infidelity and other scandalous behavior. This is why he lied!

    A Congressman without unblemished integrity is going to be an ineffective Congressman. A Congressman who is prone to scandal is going to be an ineffective Congressman. This even extends to the company he keeps! Guilt by association, if you will. Look at the Clintons during the Whitewater scandal. While acquitted of all wrong-doing, there was major controversy over the whole affair, with several questions remaining unanswered. Millions of dollars were spent on the investigation. Is it a good thing to have politicians who are even around shady dealings? I don't believe so, and I am hardly alone in this. Since corruption and influence peddling are so vehemently watched for, any instances of dishonesty, no matter how small, are going to negatively reflect on the politician involved.

    Weiner shouldn't have left Congress simply because he is of "lower moral character," but because his constituents felt him to be so. If they wanted him gone, that is a good enough reason for him to leave. That is only in relation to his actions, not his lie; when we consider the lie, he most definitely had a reason to leave.

    Again, I have provided a seven-point bit of logic that I believe shows that you do not know that lying in that situation means that he is unfit for congress. To repeat:

    [I]1. Some men are not fit to be congressmen

    2. Some men are fit to be congressmen

    3. All men are flawed on some level

    4. So some men are fit to be congressmen despite being flawed
    This ignores proven flaws. Weiner's flaws: poor judgement, lack of self-control, and lying to avoid the consequences of his actions. These are flaws that I do not wish a Congressman to have, for several reasons.

    5. But some men are more flawed than others in a particular way that makes them significantly less suitable to be congressmen than other men, and these men are not qualified to be congressmen.

    6. And men who are not more flawed than others in that particular way referred to in the previous point are not significantly less suitable to be congressmen than other men and therefore cannot be considered not qualified to be a congressman.
    Weiner is more flawed than several of his counterparts in Congress, while less flawed than others. Weiner is more flawed than many of the 300 million+ Americans, while less flawed than many as well.

    This shows nothing, except that we know that Weiner is flawed.

    7. Since you do not know whether point 5 or point 6 applies to Weiner, you likewise do not know if Weiner is more flawed than other men in a particular way that makes him less suitable than other men to be a congressman, and therefore do not know that he is not qualified to be a Congressman.
    Again, this is completely irrelevant. We already know that he is flawed. We do not need to compare him to the entire pool of human beings and what they might or might not do, when Weiner has already done. He loses his qualification to be a Congressman when enough people decide he should not be one. These people also included his peers and his Party. His fellow Congressmen judged Weiner's actions and lack of integrity to be damaging to the position, the Congress, and the Democratic Party. They wanted him gone, and called loudly and often for his resignation. And why shouldn't they?

    I am not comparing actions, I am comparing their flaws. I agree that Weiner's lie reveals a flaw in his character. But as my points shows, whether his revealed flaw is unique to him in a way that shows that he is unfit to be a Congressman is not known.
    Are you forwarding that the natural assumption is that his replacement will be no better? Are you claiming that any replacement will undoubtedly have the same flaw in character that you agree Weiner has?

    If not... then I really don't see your point. His flaw is obviously not unique, but it is obviously not a part of the human condition. Other people are not necessarily going to have it. When it comes to representatives, I would prefer that they don't, ceteris paribus.

    Would you pick someone with known character flaws over someone without the same flaws, all things being equal?

    [quote]and if his actions do not reveal him to be one or the other, then you cannot claim that it does.[/'quote]

    I will not accept the burden that you are trying to shift onto me. If I answer "5", you are going to say "Support or retract" that I know he is more flawed than a random Joe off the street. This is an impossible position, because I do not have any data as to how prevalent cheating and lying is among the populace. And neither do you. But the point remains that we do know Weiner is a cheater and a liar. Even if only 1% of the population would not do the same things as Weiner, I want someone from that 1% to represent me!

    I am only concerned with bad behavior that reveals that one is not fit to be a Congressman, not bad behavior in general.
    Scandal affects one's fitness as a Congressman. Bad behavior that causes scandal is accountable.

    Because all of those bad things you mentioned are not directly related to his job duties and therefore do not reflect on how well he does his job when allowed to do so, which is all that matters to me.
    If he were a murderer, that would not directly reflect on his on how well he does his job if allowed to do so. He would go to jail, which would not allow him to further represent his people... but what about the act of murder itself would make him naturally worse at writing bills and representing his constituents (assuming his murder victim was not a constituent)?

    Nothing. Nothing at all. Yet, a murderer would be considered a "bad Congressman," irrespective of any good he may have done while in office. After all, if people didn't care about murder, there would be nothing stopping him from effectively carrying out the tasks of his job to whatever ability we would come to expect from him.

    But people do care about murder. They also care about infidelity, stupid actions, and lying. Not as much as murder, of course, but they still care.

    Sure. The more alike two actions are, the more likely that it is that doing one will indicate that one will do the other.

    Stealing a candy bar and stealing a soda is:
    1. stealing
    2. taking something consumable
    3. taking something inexpensive
    4. taking something that is commonly sold in grocery and convenience stores
    5. taking something that one can slip in their pocket
    and I'm sure I could name numerous other similarities but you get the idea by now I'm sure.

    And conversely if one were to compare stealing a candy bar and stealing a car, the similarity list would be much smaller and therefore one could not make the case that stealing a candy bar means that one is likely to steal a car.
    I agree with this part completely. A candy bar and a soda are very similar items, of similar value. A car is many thousands of times the value, and represents a greater loss to a single entity if stolen. More harm is done by stealing a car, so much so that they are almost different situations. In fact, under the guise of the law they are different situations - petty larceny and grand larceny.

    Now, lying about an affair is:
    1. Lying
    2. Lying about a sexual indiscretion
    3. Lying about something, that if know, could ruin a marriage
    4. Lying about something, that if know, could ruin a career
    I would forward a slightly different list.

    Lying about an affair is:
    1. Lying
    2. Lying about something that, if known, could ruin a marriage
    3. Lying about something that, if known, could ruin a career
    4. Lying about something to avoid the consequences of a ruined career or marriage

    This lie assumes the actions the lie denies are worthy of ruining a marriage or a career. If Weiner's career were in jeopardy, for any reason.... do you expect him to lie to try to save it? Because that is essentially what happened. He knew his actions would reflect poorly on his reputation, and regardless whether or not you agree or disagree that people should or should not care, he lied to avoid this consequence. The actions themselves are irrelevant when considered from this angle.

    If he campaigned as a pro-choice candidate, but was really a pro-life individual, would he not protect this knowledge? And if found out, would he not lie about it to keep the perception that his is a pro-choice candidate? Wouldn't a pro-life mindset affect pro-choice legislation actions, or do you think one can separate their beliefs from their representative actions in all cases? Would there not be doubt that he didn't try his hardest for his constituency, done everything that he could have in order to represent their will, if it turns out his will is different than theirs?

    That is the issue at heart. Constituents do not want a scandal-prone politician. Weiner's will (infidelity, stupid actions, lying to avoid consequences) is against the will of his constituents, not to mention, his Party and his peers. Weiner did what he wanted, even though he knew people would not take kindly to his actions if found out. He then deceived the people when found out, in order to avoid the consequences of his actions.

    And if we compare that to, say, lying to his constituents about supporting a project (a lie that would show that he is bad as his job), the similarities pretty much end at point 1.
    How so? We know Weiner lies to avoid the consequences of his actions. Therefore... how do we know what his true motivations are? One may still choose to believe in Weiner, that he is honest in straight-forward in all else, yet I would not begrudge someone who feels they could no longer trust him for this very reason.

    rep·u·ta·tion

    1. The general estimation in which a person is held by the public.
    2. The state or situation of being held in high esteem.
    3. A specific characteristic or trait ascribed to a person or thing: a reputation for courtesy.

    Weiner now has a reputation of infidelity (breaking promises), stupid actions, indiscretion, and lying to cover it up. This point is irrefutable.

    Now, I'm aware that I forwarded the on-the-job lie about lying to his constituents but then you've, as far as I know, have never provided an example of something he might do wrong while on the job that the lie in question should predict.

    So here's my first challenge in regards to this

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to provide an example of something that he would do wrong on the job that this lie would predict.
    First of all, that is not how Challenges work. If I forward a claim, and I fail to support this claim, you can issue a Challenge to me to support this claim or drop it. In this case, I have not made the claim that Weiner would do wrong on the job that his lie would predict. I have never argued that he would, definitely, go against his constituents. I have, however, made an argument against your claim that people want him gone for a stupid reason.

    The perception exists that Weiner could do something on the job if left in his position, not that he would. His reputation is that of man who commits infidelity (breaking promises), stupid actions, indiscretion, and lying to cover it up. However, you have even agreed that you believe he would perform his same actions again, and I have proven that these actions did actually affect his job performance. So, by your own admission, he likely would be in the same position again someday, which is that of a worse Congressman.

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to refute the logic of the seven-point logic. And I don't mean argue that it's irrelevant. Even if it is irrelevant, if the logic is sound, it should be noted. I will take it is the logic is not challenged, then it stands as logically sound.
    I have refuted this logic in previous posts, and continue to do so in this one.

    Even so, it remains irrelevant, and because it is irrelevant, that is a valid argument against it as well. Unless, you think we should argue irrelevant points? Ok, how about this: Weiner was stupid, cheated, and lied... therefore I challenge you to refute the logic that solar activity is the reason behind global warming. It may not have anything to do with this debate, but the world has gone through warmer periods than the one we are in now, and well before people or industrial society. Refute this logic... or ignore it completely, because it is irrelevant.

    At least I'm not ignoring your argument. I have addressed it, and will continue to address it, simply because I believe in fomenting positive discourse in debate and you keep forwarding it as debate. I will continue to expose the logical flaws, and continue to call it irrelevant while doing so.

    Sure. A driver's job is to drive. A Congressman's job is not to avoid lying or avoid a scandal.
    A Congressman's job is to represent their constituents. Lying to one's constituents (and the entire nation, during a self-called press conference no less) is not representing them. Being involved in a scandal which removes the ability to accomplish one's job is not representing constituents. Lying to avoid the negative consequences from one's constituents is not representing them. Extending a scandal for eleven days does not represent one's constituents.

    A driver who shows that he can't be trusted to drive has shown that he cannot fulfill the basic duty of his job.
    A Congressman who shows that he does not tell the truth cannot fulfill the basic duties of his job.

    I see nothing that Weiner did that shows that he cannot competently fulfill the duties of his job.
    Do you think all representatives should take an eleven day sojourn while destroying their reputations?

    It's not whether he did it on his personal time or not. It shows that he cannot be trusted behind the wheel. PERIOD.
    I agree. Personal time is not naturally set aside from professional time. As such, lies about personal actions are little different than lies about professional actions, especially when the public (perhaps unfortunately) has an interest in personal actions.

    What is different about stealing a candy bar from the gas station, and stealing a bagel from the honor bar at work? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Employers have no intrinsic expectation that a convicted thief wouldn't steal from them specifically because they employ them. Likewise, constituents have no intrinsic expectation that a representative would not lie to them about public matters when that representative has already publicly lied to them about private matters.

    Because driving is the driver's duty.
    And representing is a Representative's duty. What about lying helps this? Because, I have already outlined how lying hurts this. Reputation, integrity, honesty; all tools in a representative's arsenal.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  8. #128
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Weiner's wiener

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, just to make it clear or reiterate, my only concern regarding Weiner is whether he is capable of doing a good job as Congressman, whether the decisions he would make and the actions he would take while on the job would be in the best interest in his constituents.

    And I don't particularly care about the sexual stuff as that is his private life and not his work life and the notion that a guy who's not good in romantic relationships would be bad at his job as no support. In fact, I would consider JFK and Clinton to be a couple of examples of good leaders who apparently couldn't
    "keep it in their pants".

    But then you are focusing on the lie and I find that has a bit more traction but I don't think you've shown that it means anything specific that relates to his job and would reasonably give me reason to believe that he would do a poor job as Congressman.

    Again, I have provided a seven-point bit of logic that I believe shows that you do not know that lying in that situation means that he is unfit for congress. To repeat:

    1. Some men are not fit to be congressmen

    2. Some men are fit to be congressmen

    3. All men are flawed on some level

    4. So some men are fit to be congressmen despite being flawed

    5. But some men are more flawed than others in a particular way that makes them significantly less suitable to be congressmen than other men, and these men are not qualified to be congressmen.

    6. And men who are not more flawed than others in that particular way referred to in the previous point are not significantly less suitable to be congressmen than other men and therefore cannot be considered not qualified to be a congressman.

    7. Since you do not know whether point 5 or point 6 applies to Weiner, you likewise do not know if Weiner is more flawed than other men in a particular way that makes him less suitable than other men to be a congressman, and therefore do not know that he is not qualified to be a Congressman.
    I would like to point one a particular reason such a flaw as Weiner's is inherently bad for his job. We have clearly seen the length he went to in order to cover up his behavior. He lied. He implicated others in criminal behavior. He lost his temper on more than one occasion. In other words, he made himself vulnerable, particularly to blackmail and outside influence. We are fortunate that his behavior was exposed before the information was used (of course we don't know if any of his decisions were actually influenced by his illicit behavior). The same can be said for Clinton and JFK. More than one person has indicated that Clinton's grasp on his job and duties was negatively effected by the Lewinsky affair.
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-22650132/
    "General Hugh Shelton, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the claims in his autobiography."

    I find it odd you consider JFK a good president. Most historians would claim his term was too brief to cast judgment. You can point out the Cuban Missile Crisis which may never have happened had JFK not bungled the Bay of Pigs. Again, though, the real issue is that these men take great risks in exposing themselves (literally and figuratively). By acting in a manner which forces them to lie and perpetuate deceit, they risk blackmail and invariably add another item on their plate which takes their focus off of their job. So, even if you don't care if your representative is lying to you, you should care that he is taking risks by the very act of adultery considering the information and state secrets he has access to. You should also be concerned about his attention to detail which simply cannot be as good by virtue of the fact he must take an active role in suppressing information and hiding his behavior.

    Much like the kosher laws, whether we claim something is good based on a version of morality or not, there often seems to be practical reasons why certain behaviors are deemed moral/immoral. Simply casting a behavior as unimportant because you don't see its real-world application and minimizing it because you deem its value strictly moral may not always serve your best-interests.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •