Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Spoiler: for length (click to show/hide)

Being a criminal doesn't affect his ability to execute his duties either, unless of course the crime is either Obstruction Of Justice or Malfeasance In Office. Which it isn't

Being convicted of a crime and serving the sentence, however, would quite possibly affect his ability to execute his duties. And I really, really, really hope I don't have to spell out why politicians shouldn't be immune to prosecution. Now, whether or not this is legally a crime or not, I'm not entirely sure; I doubt it, since there's not a chance in hell he'd have admitted it in public if it were. I'm not sure that I'd object, though, if unsolicited junk shot mailing fell under some sort of sexual harassment category, though I'm hardly qualified to argue over what the penalty ought to be.

To be clear, I'm not saying a politician's sex life is any of our business because he's a politician or because the dude's sexual proclivities are the defining characteristics of his morality. I'm saying a politician's sexual harassment history is our business because sexual harassment is Not Okay.

I'm not saying that politicians should be immune to prosecution. I'm saying that they should be permitted to vote on the passage of legislation from prison.

I would question the ability of a person in prison to examine legislation effectively in the context it deserves and to remain free from bias, especially given that it adds one hell of an obvious route for lobbyists to go ("Here, we'll make an unrelated donation to the legal team working on your appeal and..."). Then again, it might be an effective way of getting somebody to work on improving the prison system...[/sarcasm]

I'll also go ahead and say that I'm kind of flip-flopping on the degree to which the public should intervene here, and I think the main thing that gives me pause in terms of who's hurt is that a wife has an effective punishment she can level at him, while the victim of a sexual harassment thing just doesn't in most cases. But I'm starting to get a sense of mental dissonance over whether it's legit to consider professional consequences for sexual harassment but not for an affair, and I'll have to think on it some more before I can come to a conclusion that I think would be really solid. I don't think I can come down on the side of not caring about either, though, I just need to decide whether the affair is legitimately public business when a public figure is concerned or not.

As for the whole hedonistic lives thing... this isn't really the thread for that. Much as I'd like to address it, this thread is so far removed from philosophy that even I don't think there's a legitimate reason to drag us out onto a discussion of the meaning of life, so we should probably try to find other bases for arguing.

[Bohandas]

I'm not saying that politicians should be immune to prosecution. I'm saying that if necessary they should be permitted to vote on the passage of legislation from their prison cells.

. . .

I don't hold politicians in such high regard that I think we can't get someone else to do a better job.

Oh, I don't for a moment doubt that better people exist that could fill most political positions. But I doubt that such people could be easily identified, and I doubt that they would have any better than usual chance of being elected even if they were.

[Aqizzar]

I think the point being lost in all this was that there have been far worse sex-related political "scandals" that people didn't freak out nearly as much over, or as fast, as this one, which didn't involve any actual sex (for what little that's actually worth).

There's also the fact that a majority of the people the guy in question has to answer to, including his wife, are not exactly holding it against him to a professional level.  But that has nothing to do with an argument of principle.

[Vector]

I think the point being lost in all this was that there have been far worse sex-related political "scandals" that people didn't freak out nearly as much over, or as fast, as this one, which didn't involve any actual sex (for what little that's actually worth).

Ah, well, I'm only freaking out extra over this one because, when I was younger, I didn't read news articles or pay any attention whatsoever to politics.

[KaelGotDwarves]

You know what the particularly cool thing about human beings is? Our ability to give things meaning. It separates us from non-living things. So even inherently meaningless concepts like "society", "justice", "honour", "marriage", "love", and "humanity" have a systematic meaning that allows communication.

Otherwise we might as well lead hedonistic lives and do what our desires and penis command us to because why the fuck not? It's all meaningless.

To argue that everything is ontologically and epistemologically subjective is just silly, as we can never agree on meaning.

EXACTLY!!!

See, I'm not a fan of the far-subjective or objectivist views that tell us ultimately that everything is meaningless or systematic so we can't have a meaningful discussion and literally fuck all or what have you. I do understand that perspective but the beauty in giving this strange universe we find ourselves living in meaning is a joy, and sharing that with other peculiar carbon based lifeforms.

Also, please don't ever live anywhere near my hypothetical children.

@Bauglir: ultimately, politics is about systems of power. But to have an actual dialogue about it, there has to be certain assumptions about the nature of truth. We've just established that our paradigms of reality are completely removed from each other so it's nothing we're ever going to agree on. And that's fine. But if you actually want to have a meaningful discussion, you have to be able to agree that the discussion and human systems and institutions have meaning in the first place

[Bauglir]

@KaelGotDwarves

That's a good point. I might be getting overly sensitive to philosophical-derails, because I've caused one or two in a row. It's just that when you click on The Weiner Thread you don't expect to see people debating over the objectivity (or lack thereof) inherent in our perception of reality and the impact that might have on morality. I think, though, that I've reached a point where I no longer feel competent to put forth a sensible argument even on principle, so I'm just gonna shut up now for a while and revise my principles.

[TherosPherae]

It's just that when you click on The Weiner Thread you don't expect to see people debating over the objectivity (or lack thereof) inherent in our perception of reality and the impact that might have on morality.

Yeah, you expect to see something more like....

Spoiler: This (click to show/hide)

....I want this. Now.

[Leafsnail]

I'm not saying that politicians should be immune to prosecution. I'm saying that if necessary they should be permitted to vote on the passage of legislation from their prison cells.

Interestingly, UK Lords have been sent to prison several times, and they are allowed to resume their position after they get out (even if they're in prison for cheating on their expenses... as a Lord).  I have a feeling this doesn't apply to elected representatives though.

[RedKing]

So now it's out that Weiner asked a porn star to lie about the fact that they had exchanged over 100 emails. From what she's saying, it actually began as her supporting him on policy positions such as abortions, and wound up with him wanting to turn it into a "Letters to Penthouse" kind of email exchange.

Also, I feel a little uncomfortable that I actually recognize this particular actress....

[Nikov]

He should have come clean about it immediately, resigned, gone into a Zen garden, and disembowled himself.

I said this tongue-in-cheek, but now this is starting to slowly become a quasi-rational decision. I'm glad he's taking a leave of absence for treatment though. Don't get me wrong.

[Vector]

I'm really glad he's going in for treatment, as well.

I hope he resigns with honor and has plenty of money to live on, because I certainly don't want to see him kill himself, and I doubt anyone's going to be too happy about hiring him after that fiasco.

[Nikov]

And although I recognize he may well need treatment, I don't let it absolve him of wrongdoing either. I just want to make that clear. I also find it particularly reprehensible he was contacted by someone thanking him for supporting women's rights and it devolved into "wow, ur a pornstar, post ur tits".

[Vector]

Yeah.  That's disgusting.

I think part of my issue with this is that I just don't understand how this happens.  I just don't even get it.  I've done plenty of wrong things in my life, some of them cruel and abusive--mostly through lack of understanding, but I don't want to absolve myself here.  There's been plenty of times when I really should have known better.

But I don't think I'll ever understand this "tits or GTFO" sort of attitude.

[Nikov]

Why do womanizers take Women's Studies classes in college? Albino Blacksheep presents the following possibility.

3. Mr. Women’s Studies – He comes to class everyday, smells like too much Axe Body Spray and is always dressed in a slightly too tight polo. Mr. Women’s Studies’ sole reason for enrolling in this class is to meet desperate girls who feel like they need to take a Women’s Studies class to be around a community of women (and possibly a strong male shoulder to cry on). He rarely speaks, but he tends to linger after class to get your opinion on that last discussion of Feminism in Tibet and to let you know his fraternity is having a party this weekend.

This may or may not be true, and I certainly have no opinion on it.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Oh no, I knew guys like that back in uni that were one of three guys in a hundred+ person Psychology of Women class.

It's sad/hilarious/entertaining when the PUA element is obvious.