Christian Morality Ends Another Career

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Christian Morality Ends Another Career

Quote:

Is John Edwards’ political career over? Posted: 06:41 PM ET

ALT TEXT
(PHOTO CREDIT: AP PHOTO)

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

In the end, he was too good to be true. John Edwards rode onto the national stage with a compelling message about poverty, about corporations that prey on the vulnerable. He had a record of standing up for the little guy…and he got very rich doing it.

He was tailor-made for politics – good looking with “aw-shucks” kind of country boy charm. He got to the Senate, onto the ticket as vice president in 2004 and was in the running for the White House himself for a while earlier this year.

Now it’s all over. After denying it for months, John Edwards has finally admitted in an interview to be broadcast on ABC’s Nightline tonight that he had an extramarital affair with a woman who worked on his campaign.

When the National Enquirer first reported this story in October of 2007, Edwards denied everything, saying “The story is false, it’s completely untrue, it’s ridiculous.”

Interesting the story breaks late on a Friday and the ABC interview will be broadcast the same night the opening ceremonies are running on NBC. None of this is an accident.

Speculation around Edwards had included a possible spot on the Obama ticket as Vice President, or perhaps as attorney general in an Obama administration.

By tomorrow morning, he’ll be lucky to get his calls returned by Howard Dean’s housekeeper.

 

I'm not about to suggest that Edwards did a good thing by cheating on his wife.  However, as I have clearly demonstrated (On Myth, Sexuality, and Culture, What Science Says About Human Sexuality) science shows us with certainty that the American model of legislatively enforced strict monogamy is almost historically nonexistent, and there is no particular evidence that it is an ideal to be striven for.  Part of the evolutionary benefit of being a powerful man is that you have lots of available women.  It's not a pretty thing to talk about, but it's real.  If Edwards swore to be faithful to his wife, that's one thing, and he should be held accountable for making the promise, whether that means making child support payments after the divorce, or whatever else might be appropriate for his personal situation.  However, the public vilification and subsequent disqualification for public office is a perfect example of what happens when you let irrational moral codes from a 2000 year old mythology trump rational understanding of a human being.

For one thing, where his penis has been has very little (if anything) to do with his foreign policy or views on healthcare.  For another thing, I notice that there are a lot of congressmen on the Rethuglican side of the fence who haven't led exemplary marital lives, and nobody's calling for their resignations.  This is clearly an example of religiostupidification mixed with partisan politics, and as usual, it's had the result of forcing a decent man out of politics.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Religion is poison , an

Religion is poison , an insult to what we are.

  When pres Clinton got caught, I was pissed that he didn't say, "Yeah I had a little fun, and it's time I tell Hilary I've decided we should be "swingers" ! ,  with a laugh ....    


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
IAGAY, I have always thought

IAGAY, I have always thought that being elected president ought to come with an honorary fluffer.  Seriously, do we want a president who isn't getting laid?  Seriously... it ought to be part of the duty of being president to get your rocks off at least once or twice a day.  We do not need the leader of the Western World getting hard up and frustrated by blue balls.

I tend to think Hillary wasn't taking very good care of Bill.  Rather than impeach him, we should have applauded him for making sure that he was working while in a relaxed state of mind.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Absolutely. All need to be

Absolutely. All need to be happy, true too what we are, lovers .... kings and queens too.    


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Your cheating heart

 

   I shouldn't make light of this but I have to

   ask, what is the difference between the man

   who would cheat on his wife... and the man

   who would cheat on his country ?  (My computer

    screen isn't scrolling for me again.  My apologies !!)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:what is the difference

Quote:
what is the difference between the man

   who would cheat on his wife... and the man

   who would cheat on his country ?

A lot.  Cheating on wives by powerful men is nearly ubiquitous.  Let me make that absolutely clear.  Throughout history, it is apparent that nearly all really powerful men have cheated.  That's because it's really, really easy, and it's just sex.  Sex is a LOT different than selling secrets for thermonuclear weapons.  Humans aren't stupid.  We realize that the consequences of treason are a lot more than the consequences of getting some play on the side.  We weigh risk versus reward.

 

 [EDIT: Pardon my gin induced carelessness.  Throughout history, virtually all powerful men have had multiple women.  It has very seldom been viewed as cheating.  Please read my essays to get an overview of the history of monogamy.  What Science Says About Human Sexuality, On Myth, Sexuality, and Culture]

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Was he cheating? How does

Was he cheating? How does one leave a lover, spouse?

  The difference?  1 vs 300 million .....

   

  


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Politics

 

   And here I thought it was just politics as usual.  I remember a quote I once heard ...  If men were as true to their country as they are to their wives ...   good-bye country.

 

                                                      I love these little guys !


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
side notes aside

 

   Is it true that a republican is more likely to cheat on his country, than his wife ?


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
Boon Docks wrote:    Is

Boon Docks wrote:

 

   Is it true that a republican is more likely to cheat on his country, than his wife ?

Don't know if there have been any studies but, look at the current situation.  We can blame some of it (recent events) on the Dems, the rest lays directly on the Repugs.  Look at how busy they've been stealing us blind and putting more and more of us in poverty.  Basically, selling the country to the Chinese, Mexico and  S.America.  If that ain't treason it should be! I bet their wives didn't see that much action.

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Country vs. family

 

  I suppose if a man is involved in destroying his country he is more apt to protect his family.  True or false !?!


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I tend to

Hambydammit wrote:
I tend to think Hillary wasn't taking very good care of Bill.
Oh, come on.

You know very well Hillary could have been screwing Bill's brains out and Bill would have still been just as receptive to the offers of a younger woman.

You also know that's an unfair way to absolve Bill Clinton of his responsibility for his decision.

If anyone should be rewarded for making sure we had a sexually satisfied president it should be Monica, who was the instigator. Though she really could have chosen better timing >.> Ah well, no situation is perfect.

Heh, can you imagine how much greater the scandal if it had been consented to by Hillary? I don't think most folks would have known what to do with that.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Swingers

 

   How would that idea go over in Washington, swinging presidents ?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I like it , "America Swings"

I like it , "America Swings" .... real leadership at last ....


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Boon Docks wrote:How would

Boon Docks wrote:
How would that idea go over in Washington, swinging presidents ?
I'll bet it has and does happen with greater frequency than one might expect. Smiling


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Funny shit

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I like it , "America Swings" .... real leadership at last ....

 

  That is good !!      At least someone will be having fun in Washington, oh I suppose they already do.  Again that is a good laugh.  Thanks


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
 Remember that basic

 Remember that basic infidelity can only threaten a democrat's career.


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If anyone should be

Quote:
If anyone should be rewarded for making sure we had a sexually satisfied president it should be Monica, who was the instigator.

 

The problem with that was that Monica was an intern.  There was a massive abuse of power and betrayal, regardless of 'who started it'

 

Quote:
A lot.  Cheating on wives by powerful men is nearly ubiquitous.  Let me make that absolutely clear.  Throughout history, it is apparent that nearly all really powerful men have cheated.

 

'Well, he did it too!' has never been a good excuse.  The fact of the matter is that the man made a promise, and broke it.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Balrogoz - "The fact of the

Balrogoz - "The fact of the matter is that the man made a promise, and broke it." ////

  Maybe sexually bored Hillary actually didn't care or even knew, but we wouldn't be told that. Man had an affair so spend millions and years freaking about it. OMG our human king likes girls, and has an imperfect marriage.

  Think smart Monica would do it all over again, and even better? I do.

  

 


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Balrogoz - "The fact of the matter is that the man made a promise, and broke it." ////

  Maybe sexually bored Hillary actually didn't care or even knew, but we wouldn't be told that. Man had an affair so spend millions and years freaking about it. OMG our human king likes girls, and has an imperfect marriage.

  Think smart Monica would do it all over again, and even better? I do.

  

 

 

This seems a pretty clear case of 'you're a role model, like it or not.'  Fact is marriage is a promise.  A bad one?  Maybe, but a promise none the less.  It's a promise I haven't made because I don't want to break such a promise.  You'd think the leader of the free world would be able to either keep the promise or get out of such an agreement.

 

Whether Monica was smart and whether she regrets it or not is hardly the issue.  The fact is that a man used his position of power to commit sexual harassment, leveraging the situation for the kind of things that strippers won't do.  I don't understand how anyone could consider his actions were justifiable.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
B - You'd think the leader

B - You'd think the leader of the free world would be able to either keep the promise or get out of such an agreement. ////

      Nope, that's not so easy,  this is an Xain dominated country.

B - The fact is that a man used his position of power to commit sexual harassment, leveraging the situation for the kind of things that strippers won't do.  I don't understand how anyone could consider his actions were justifiable. ////

      Young women think this old lucky man is powerful, and I'm happy they use their powerful leverage on me, and lots of gals like oral fun. I can't make a moral judgment on the Clinton's whom I don't know. Think Hillary married Bill because he was the faithful type ? Think she thought he'd ever be sexually faithful ?  Not me .....

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Balrogoz wrote:Quote:If

Balrogoz wrote:

Quote:
If anyone should be rewarded for making sure we had a sexually satisfied president it should be Monica, who was the instigator.

 

The problem with that was that Monica was an intern.  There was a massive abuse of power and betrayal, regardless of 'who started it'

 

Monica and Bill had a mutual relationship.

Abuse of power and/or sexual harrassment would have been the case if Bill threatened Monica in some way to get sex.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Abuse of power

aiia wrote:

Abuse of power and/or sexual harrassment would have been the case if Bill threatened Monica in some way to get sex.

 

 

Your boss saying, 'hey, you up for it?' is totally different from a guy at the bar saying it.  I'm not getting into the legality of it, I'm simply saying that a boss diddling their assistant necessarily includes a power relationship.  That might be OK for Pop's hardware and Missy the secretary in certain very specific and rare occasions.  It is certainly inexcusable for the president of the united states.

 

The situation is thoroughly immoral, regardless of 'who started it' or what the primal nature of a man in nature is.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Differences

 

   So what is the difference between the married man having multiple affairs and the polygamist ?  Their both getting some from more than one partner.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
The christian marriage

The christian marriage contact is not even natural to human nature. If you love someone set them free. Obligation to the children is the first prime moral issue of marriage. Are we all not essentially married to each other ? All the kids, all the living are all our responsibility .....  We are ONE .... 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Balrogoz wrote: The

Balrogoz wrote:

 

The situation is thoroughly immoral, 

How so?

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:'Well, he did it too!'

Quote:
'Well, he did it too!' has never been a good excuse.  The fact of the matter is that the man made a promise, and broke it.

Read what I wrote more carefully.  I did not excuse anyone from personal responsibility to their wives or families.  I noted that infidelity is extremely common among powerful men.  I also noted that it has no apparent connection with political positions, and that we can hardly equate marital fidelity with loyalty to country.  They're not even remotely connected.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:This seems a pretty

Quote:
This seems a pretty clear case of 'you're a role model, like it or not.'  Fact is marriage is a promise.  A bad one?  Maybe, but a promise none the less.  It's a promise I haven't made because I don't want to break such a promise.  You'd think the leader of the free world would be able to either keep the promise or get out of such an agreement.

Let me say it again.  Marriage is about sex, reproduction, and personal relationships.  Politics is about running a country.  The two are not analogous.

There's another side to this.  Remember please that our morality is part genetics and part environment and part experience.   Some people are better suited to be in a given situation at a given time, and the morality that history ascribes to them will be judged accordingly.  To many in England, Oliver Cromwell was a savior, yet he was an incorrigible bully who was abusive to nearly everyone around him.  Fortunately (for him, at least) he rose to power right when it benefited England to have an abusive bully in charge.  (Clearly, England's neighbors were not so fortunate...)

Lawrence of Arabia was a hero because of his incredible charisma and his ability to charm just about anyone into doing what he wanted.  This was great for him when he was a national hero in the middle of battle.  When he retired, he found his personality was completely unsuited to any existence other than war.  He died in a motorcycle crash several weeks afterward.  It's odd that a man so skilled managed to die in such a way.  Many people have speculated that it wasn't accidental.

The thing is, the skills that make one a great political or military leader are often the opposite of what makes one a loyal and faithful husband.  The same skills that allow politicians to manipulate those around them also make it very easy for them to get women.  Moreover, women are attracted to power.  John F Kennedy was a brilliant politician and a natural leader.  He was also an incorrigible womanizer.  The same set of skills made him very good at both.

It's a mistake to treat morality so absolutely.  It's a mistake on several levels.  First, as I've mentioned, there's no connection between marital fidelity and loyalty to one's country.  (Consider how many soldiers dip their wicks on shore leave, and how incredibly loyal most of them are to their country!)   Second, leadership qualities are very attractive to women, so powerful leaders have many more chances.  Third, the very things that make them good leaders are the things that make them very likely to cheat.  Fourth, freethinking rationalists need to break themselves away from the rigid false dichotomy of morality that our religious culture teaches us.  Things are not always black or white.  In general, we have no idea what goes on in the marital home of leaders.  Maybe Edwards' wife is frigid and hasn't put out for five years.  Maybe Hillary had only been a wife to Bill in name, for political reasons.  The point is, we don't know, and automatic moralist judgments about politicians because of a discovered affair are unwise.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I would rather have a Bill

I would rather have a Bill Clinton or JFK who cheats on his wife thana George W Bush that is faithful to his wife but does a shit job running the country. If it's a choice between fucking any woman he can get his hands on or fucking UP the country, it's a very easy choice to make.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I would rather have a

Quote:
I would rather have a Bill Clinton or JFK who cheats on his wife thana George W Bush that is faithful to his wife but does a shit job running the country. If it's a choice between fucking any woman he can get his hands on or fucking UP the country, it's a very easy choice to make.

Interestingly, the politicians who haven't been busted for cheating is also a list of the worst presidents of the last seventy five years...

Something to think about, I suppose.

Anyway, Thomas Jefferson had an affair with a slave.  Scandalous.

Grover Cleveland was accused of having an affair.  Oddly enough, he admitted to it, brushed it off, and went on to win the election, largely because he was perceived as a man who would admit to his own mistakes.  Dubya could learn a thing or two...

Warren Harding's affairs were so public that it's believed by some that his wife poisoned him for it.

FDR had an affair with Lucy Mercer, Eleanor's social secretary.  Intern, anyone?

Dwight D. Eisenhower had an affair with Kay Summersby, his personal driver.  Intern, anyone?

LBJ had a virtual harem of women, and at least one illegitimate child.

Notable presidents who don't appear to have dabbled their dipstick... Bush I and II, Reagan, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Hoover...  Also notable... all of these were pretty bad presidents.  I'm not suggesting that good presidents have affairs and bad ones don't.  I'm showing that affairs have nothing to do with the effectiveness of a president.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: I also noted that

 

Quote:
 I also noted that it has no apparent connection with political positions, and that we can hardly equate marital fidelity with loyalty to country.  They're not even remotely connected.

 

On this we agree, and I never said otherwise.  I never said he was a bad leader, simply a bad role-model (and I think it's important that a political leader is a good role model, though not necessarily so - I offer Churchill as a possible example).

Quote:

Balrogoz wrote:

 

 

The situation is thoroughly immoral, 

 

 

How so?

 

Breaking a promise (marriage)  is lying, I should think.  Lying is..  immoral, I should think...  then there is the 'boss screwing subordinate' issue.  The power relation cannot be dismissed here.

 

If I were asked, I would go so far as to say there is nothing more immoral than lying, I suspect that all more 'serious' transgressions are founded upon a lie.  Though it's been a loooong time since I seriously discussed that topic and lowered my expectations of my fellow humans since then (this is not an implication of anyone involved in this discussion).

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Notable

Hambydammit wrote:

Notable presidents who don't appear to have dabbled their dipstick... Bush I and II, Reagan, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Hoover...  Also notable... all of these were pretty bad presidents.  I'm not suggesting that good presidents have affairs and bad ones don't.  I'm showing that affairs have nothing to do with the effectiveness of a president.

 

 

I wouldn't put Reagan in that list. He was reputedly cheating with Nancy while married to Jane Wyman.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
How old is Edwards? 55?

How old is Edwards? 55? Shouldn't Mr Happy be retired?

 

Anyway, another issue here is that he lied about it.

 

Quote:

Edwards denied everything, saying “The story is false, it’s completely untrue, it’s ridiculous.”

 

If he's willing to lie about something that doesn't really have to do with his political decision, what would he do with something that does?

 

He lied about because he thought it would damage his career. To me this shows that he's willing to lie to keep it.

 

 

And yet I highly doubt he'd be getting a divorce.

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I didn't know the bit about

I didn't know the bit about Ron and Nancy.  Thanks for the info.

Quote:
Anyway, another issue here is that he lied about it.

Well, duh.  Metaphorical crucifixion by the media still hurts like hell, particularly one's career.

Quote:
If he's willing to lie about something that doesn't really have to do with his political decision, what would he do with something that does?

Why does everyone insist on making this argument?  It's nonsense.  Everyone reading this has lied about something relatively insignificant and kept their word about really important things.  In the scope of global political negotiations, where someone gets their weanie waxed is really insignificant.

"Character" is not as simple as the media portrays it.  People weigh cost and benefit when they decide what to do in a given situation.  A person who lies to his wife about an affair is no more likely than a faithful man to sell nuclear secrets to the enemy.  They're completely different situations with completely different consequences and rewards.  This is why I try so hard to explain the scientific model of morality to people.  Everyone has the capacity for great good and great evil.  If anyone reading this hasn't heard of the Milgram experiment, go to Wiki and read about it.

Quote:
He lied about because he thought it would damage his career. To me this shows that he's willing to lie to keep it.

Of course he's willing to lie to keep his career.  Everyone is, depending on the circumstances.  Everybody lies sometimes, when it's to their advantage, and the risk of getting caught combined with the consequences of getting caught don't outweigh it. 

Consider this:  Any Democrat in America who cheats on his wife will face political ruin if the Rethuglicans get a hold of the story.  Therefore, the anticipated consequence of infidelity being discovered is TOTAL DISASTER.  Any consequence of lying is either equal to or less than TOTAL DISASTER.  Therefore, it's always advantageous to lie about an affair when you're a politician.  Ask any politician.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 To me this suggests he


 

To me this suggests he doesn't want to own up to his actions, that isn't a good trait for a politican. Think if Bush owned up to his mistakes about Iraq?

 

 


 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:To me this suggests he

Quote:
To me this suggests he doesn't want to own up to his actions, that isn't a good trait for a politican. Think if Bush owned up to his mistakes about Iraq?

You're doing it again.  Let me try this another time.  Every human has the capacity for good and evil.  There's no such thing as a person who is genetically determined to be a saint and another that is destined to be a hardened criminal.  Regardless of our own beliefs about morality (and our beliefs about our own morality!) we all adjust to the circumstances.

Are you familiar with the Milgram experiments?  If you're not, google them.  It's important to this discussion.  (Do it before continuing with my answer.)

Now, once you know that humans alter their own perceptions about morality, consider that we also alter our memory.  In study after study, it has been proven that we remember ourselves as more moral, more resolute, more faithful, and more generous than we really are.  We literally rewrite history to make ourselves look better in our own minds than we really are.  This is all subconscious, of course.

Politicians do not have the luxury of forgetting things they've done in the past.  This is because everything they've ever done is posted on the internet, made into TV ads, and peppered all over newspapers every election year.  If it's true that politics is corrupt business (and it is true) then it is also true that politicians get raked over the coals far, far worse than anyone else when it comes to their personal failures.  Consider:  Would you suggest that a teacher can't be trusted to teach children accurate material because she cheated on her husband?  Of course not!  That's ridiculous.  She is not more likely to change grades or to lie about a child's performance because she's been unfaithful.  In fact, if someone ever suggested that we force teachers to answer questions about their personal life before being given a job, they'd be run out of town on a rail.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Balrogoz wrote:aiia

Balrogoz wrote:

aiia wrote:
How so? 
Breaking a promise (marriage)  is lying, I should think.

A marriage is not a promise of not fooling around; it is a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other.
A marriage between two people is between the two people not to some religious definition of marriage.
A promise is a vow. The promise to not have other relationships is entirely between the two people.
Married couples have different relationships for example some couples have an open marriage.

If they promised to each other or if it is understood that they will not have extramarital relations and someone makes that promise knowly planning to have extramarital relations, then that person lied.

Note that Hillary and Bill are still together?


Quote:
then there is the 'boss screwing subordinate' issue. The power relation cannot be dismissed here.

If the relation is mutual what is the problem?
 

Quote:
Lying is..  immoral, I should think... 
Quote:
...If I were asked, I would go so far as to say there is nothing more immoral than lying, I suspect that all more 'serious' transgressions are founded upon a lie.  Though it's been a loooong time since I seriously discussed that topic and lowered my expectations of my fellow humans since then (this is not an implication of anyone involved in this discussion).

Not all lying is immoral.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:A marriage is not

aiia wrote:

A marriage is not a promise of not fooling around; it is a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other.
A marriage between two people is between the two people not to some religious definition of marriage.
A promise is a vow. The promise to not have other relationships is entirely between the two people.
Married couples have different relationships for example some couples have an open marriage.

If they promised to each other or if it is understood that they will not have extramarital relations and someone makes that promise knowly planning to have extramarital relations, then that person lied.

Ah, here's the crux, then.  I disagree.  I think marriage is monogamous.  I know there are other options to having a life-partner, and that's fine.  But marriage, in our culture, is above all things, I should think, monogamous.  That may shift as the culture does.

I don't think anyone would argue that the Clintons have a redefined relationship. Pretty sure they stood in a church and made the usual vows.  That being said I am anything but an expert in that subject, and don't really care.

 

What I'm surprised about is the assertion that what Clinton did is OK.  Is that what you are saying?

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Retiring Mr. Happy

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

How old is Edwards? 55? Shouldn't Mr Happy be retired?

 

Anyway, another issue here is that he lied about it.

 

Quote:

 

   How about that, Pineapple thinks that "Mr. Happy" should be retired at about age 55.  Where is IAGAY ?!?

 

                                           

 

   And how many more members over 50 here ?

 

 

 

 

And yet I highly doubt he'd be getting a divorce. 

 

    Pineapple, do you really think a woman should divorce her husband because of an affair ?  That is really sad !

 

                                            

 

   There is way too much money  $$$   involved for a divorce.  There might also be just a lifetime of memories and family to consider.  After divorce, life can be very difficult to resume any normal activities.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Balrogoz wrote:aiia wrote:A

Balrogoz wrote:

aiia wrote:

A marriage is not a promise of not fooling around; it is a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other.
A marriage between two people is between the two people not to some religious definition of marriage.
A promise is a vow. The promise to not have other relationships is entirely between the two people.
Married couples have different relationships for example some couples have an open marriage.

If they promised to each other or if it is understood that they will not have extramarital relations and someone makes that promise knowly planning to have extramarital relations, then that person lied.

I don't think anyone would argue that the Clintons have a redefined relationship. Pretty sure they stood in a church and made the usual vows.  

The "usual vows" have traditionally used the term "obey".  That word of course has usually only applied to one half of the marriage relationship.

What are the odds Hillary agreed to that ?

The point is...vows are between the husband and wife (or any domestic partnership) and in my experience are often written by both parties.  They (and only they) should hold each other to those vows w/o regard to tradition, because...as it's easy to see, traditional more's can be pretty f'ed up.

The problem is with the unrealistic expectations.

I was visiting a good friend of mine who has been married to a very nice woman for 11 years.  The wife, overhearing a conversation we were having on masturbation, declared that she thought this was a disgusting practice & had never engaged in such behavior.

I assured her it was a very normal thing for men and women to do.  She became somewhat irate and stated this:  

"I know it's disgusting and that my husband has never done it.  He has me, so he doesn't have to.  That's one thing I do know". 

Here it comes:

Turning to her solid rock of a husband she asked,

"You've never touched yourself like that have you honey"?

My friends and I sat frozen w/ our mouths hanging open trying like hell not to laugh and waited.

Without batting an eye, he met her gaze and stated,

"No you know I've never done that sweetheart".

Incidentally, hilarious laughter did not help his situation.     

The point here is that when it comes to sex humans have created a romantic world that in many cases has little to nothing to do with reality.

So here's what i think of Clinton lying about his affair w/ Monica. 

There is no one anywhere...on this planet... who has not lied about sex at least once in their lives. 

The fact that so many were incensed by this lie, to me is absurd.

I look forward to the day when we begin to be honest w/ ourselves about these issues.  I think this is the point Hamby is trying to make.

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Balrogoz wrote:aiia wrote:A

Balrogoz wrote:

aiia wrote:

A marriage is not a promise of not fooling around; it is a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other.
A marriage between two people is between the two people not to some religious definition of marriage.
A promise is a vow. The promise to not have other relationships is entirely between the two people.
Married couples have different relationships for example some couples have an open marriage.

If they promised to each other or if it is understood that they will not have extramarital relations and someone makes that promise knowly planning to have extramarital relations, then that person lied.

Ah, here's the crux, then.  I disagree.  I think marriage is monogamous. 

That's between you and you spouse, however, no one else outside other partnerships should determine how they should behave in their relation.

 

Quote:
What I'm surprised about is the assertion that what Clinton did is OK.  Is that what you are saying?

As I said Monica and Bill had a mutual relationship. Does anyone know what understanding Hillary and Bill had between each other?

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I look forward to

 

Quote:
I look forward to the day when we begin to be honest w/ ourselves about these issues.  I think this is the point Hamby is trying to make.

     And that is a fine point. I will lodge a hearty vote against the institution (as evidenced by my current relationship status). My point is that there are a lot of promises wrapped up in marriage, and a person is not to be excused because he [or, that person, since women get married, too] made a stupid promise. 

 

  At work if I make a deadline commitment that is stupid or unrealistic I still have to answer for it when I don't meet it.  There's no allowance for stupidity or nature, even if there is plenty of reason to expect that I would set an short DL, then miss it.   

 

When a person agrees to something, and they don't do it, they have broken a commitment and thereby a moral precept.   

 

I..  really don't know how else to make my position any clearer.   

 

Breaking a promise...   is immoral.  It doesn't matter that other people do it.  It doesn't matter if it was a stupid promise.     

 

We can talk about how reasonable the promise was, we can talk about cultural pretext of that promise, we can damn the promise as irrational or political...  but those are all separate from the issue.

 

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Am I the only person in this

Am I the only person in this conversation who is taking into consideration the fact that marriage, divorce, lying, cheating, and all other actions in question are flexible expressions of human nature?  Someone pointed out that marriage is not necessarily about monogamy.  This is obviously true.  I know at least a half a dozen couples who are polygamous to one degree or another, by agreement, and guess what?  They're married.  They aren't fucking up marriage or doing things wrong.  They're doing what they've agreed to do while it's still working.

That's what any marriage is.  You do whatever you agreed to do until you, or your partner, or the situation, or a combination of the three changes so much that it isn't worth the effort anymore.  It's not magical or mystical.  It's just people being people and entering into an agreement.  It usually happens at least partly because of chemicals that make it feel magical, but kiddos, that's because your genes want you to make babies.

Again, not one person in this conversation knows a damned thing about John Edwards' marriage.  For all you know, she may have six construction workers over for tea and gangbang every time he goes on the campaign trail.  Maybe they are swingers.  Maybe it was a marriage of convenience or political gain.  Maybe she can't suck dick to save her life.

Did it go over everyone's head that Edwards had no choice but to lie about his affair?  If he didn't lie, his career would end.  Can we also consider that the only reason this came out was the partisan politics of Rethuglican morality?  In other words, if he hadn't been a front running Democratic vice presidential hopeful, nobody would have been digging into his past and tearing through his personal life?  While we're talking about lying, which one of you is certain that he didn't already tell his wife about it?  He might have come clean years ago, and she might have agreed that it was best to keep it a secret.  Anybody think of that?

The only thing that aggravates me more than right wing fundamentalist morality police is supposedly freethinking morality police.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:That's

aiia wrote:
That's between you and you spouse, however, no one else outside other partnerships should determine how they should behave in their relation.

 

Agreed.  What I am saying, and this is the important part, is that agreeing to 'marriage' is to agree to a certain set of culturally recognized promises.  I would be terribly offended if someone told me how to act within my seven year relationship, mostly because they have no idea what the nature of that relationship is..  that's one reason I haven't made it into a marriage.  Because I don't want to agree to what that entails.

 

*A JOP service may be excepted here.  I haven't thought that through completely, but I dislike the resultant union being called a 'marriage'

 

aiia wrote:
As I said Monica and Bill had a mutual relationship.

 

This is a different issue.  A person in power over another person asking their subordinate to do stuff, anything, comes with the baggage that a person that determines everything about your working life is trying to effect your behavior.  The more unusual the request, the more emotional response it will elicit from the subordinate.  The more powerful the person asking the subordinate, the stronger emotional response from the subordinate.  Regardless of what we know in retrospect, it is simply unfair to put someone in that position.

 

*I think Monica wrote a book about this, did anyone read it?  I didn't.

 

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Am I the

Hambydammit wrote:

Am I the only person in this conversation who is taking into consideration the fact that marriage, divorce, lying, cheating, and all other actions in question are flexible expressions of human nature?  Someone pointed out that marriage is not necessarily about monogamy.  This is obviously true.  I know at least a half a dozen couples who are polygamous to one degree or another, by agreement, and guess what?  They're married.  They aren't fucking up marriage or doing things wrong.  They're doing what they've agreed to do while it's still working.

That's what any marriage is.  You do whatever you agreed to do until you, or your partner, or the situation, or a combination of the three changes so much that it isn't worth the effort anymore.  It's not magical or mystical.  It's just people being people and entering into an agreement.  It usually happens at least partly because of chemicals that make it feel magical, but kiddos, that's because your genes want you to make babies.

I think differently.  I think that marriage is a cultural phenomenon.  Walk into the street and ask the first five people what it means to be married.  That is most likely what I mean.  I'm not saying that you can't call other things marriage.  I'm not saying other relationships are more or less valid.  I'm saying that you don't get to redefine cultural precepts.  That's all.  Especially as a political leader.

 

Hambydammit wrote:
Again, not one person in this conversation knows a damned thing about John Edwards' marriage.  For all you know, she may have six construction workers over for tea and gangbang every time he goes on the campaign trail.  Maybe they are swingers.  Maybe it was a marriage of convenience or political gain.  Maybe she can't suck dick to save her life.

Did it go over everyone's head that Edwards had no choice but to lie about his affair?  If he didn't lie, his career would end.  Can we also consider that the only reason this came out was the partisan politics of Rethuglican morality?  In other words, if he hadn't been a front running Democratic vice presidential hopeful, nobody would have been digging into his past and tearing through his personal life?  While we're talking about lying, which one of you is certain that he didn't already tell his wife about it?  He might have come clean years ago, and she might have agreed that it was best to keep it a secret.  Anybody think of that?

 

Now, what if these people were open and truthful about their relationships.  What sort of world would we live in if all the people that are conforming to 'get ahead' just stopped. Maybe people would have a higher consciousness level.  Maybe people like us wouldn't have to fight so hard to get very simple facts across.

 

Hambydammit wrote:
The only thing that aggravates me more than right wing fundamentalist morality police is supposedly freethinking morality police.

 
Sorry to have a different opinion than yours.  I will keep it to myself, then.

 

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I think differently.

Quote:
I think differently.  I think that marriage is a cultural phenomenon.  Walk into the street and ask the first five people what it means to be married.

T minus five seconds to contradiction.

Quote:
I'm not saying other relationships are more or less valid.

You just said that, unless you mean that people are equally culturally respected when they live together without getting married.  After all, you just said that culture is the measure of marriage, so it must also be the measure of non-marriage.  Culture (American) clearly thinks that marriage is better than living together.

So, clearly, marriage is more valid than non-marriage, if your measure is correct.

(Or, we could just take my road and tell people to fuck off when they try to dig into our personal business.)

Quote:
I'm saying that you don't get to redefine cultural precepts.  That's all.  Especially as a political leader.

Yes, you did.  What if John Edwards has a different cultural precept, and he and his wife have a "nontraditional" understanding of their marriage?  You're saying, "Fine.  Do whatever you want, but if you buck the cultural definition of marriage, you deserve what you get."  In other words, you're helping the Christians.

You don't get to have it both ways.  Either marriage is a personal contract between two people, or it is a morally mandated, government imposed standard by which people are judged.  Which is it?

Quote:
Now, what if these people were open and truthful about their relationships.  What sort of world would we live in if all the people that are conforming to 'get ahead' just stopped. Maybe people would have a higher consciousness level.  Maybe people like us wouldn't have to fight so hard to get very simple facts across.

(cough..)

Um... some of us are trying to change the system.  Others aren't, apparently.

Look, 90 percent of people are going to want monogamous (to some degree) marriage.  That's not entirely cultural.  It's genetic, too.  The thing is, because of the way humans stratify themselves, and because of the very genetic emotions of jealousy and selfishness, people will tend to spend most of their energy trying to keep one person entirely to themselves.  We aren't going to see a Western culture where most people are polygamous, polyamorous, or where cheating is not condemned.  However, a better understanding of human nature might very well lead people to a more laisse faire approach to those who do not fall into the broad categories.  In the same way that it is culturally ok in most big cities for gays to be seen together in public now, it might one day be considered ok to have multiple relationships, open relationships, or whatever else.

I'd like to see that happen, and I do think that if it was culturally tolerated (if not wholly embraced) then more people would do it.  Not a lot more, but enough that it would be visible in most places.

What I'm trying to get you to see is that you're being part of the problem by insisting that Edwards, or anyone else, be judged by cultural standards.  You're saying that his choice of how to run his marriage, and his wife's choices, are irrelevant, and that it's appropriate that he be raked over the coals of public indignity, regardless of personal mitigating circumstances, or for that matter, his right to have a personal life.

(Yes, I'm saying that the personal life of politicians is none of your damn business, or mine either.  The public's business is how politicians do their job.)

Quote:
Sorry to have a different opinion than yours.  I will keep it to myself, then.

Say it all you want.  We don't have to agree.  That's why this is called a discussion board.  I'm sorry it offends you that your position aggravates me.  I imagine it aggravates you that I disagree with you strongly.  It's part of being human.  Still, I am trying to explain my position to you in the hopes that you will change your mind, or at the very least, perhaps be more tolerant of those whose concepts of morality are not as rigid as yours.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Balrogoz wrote: *A JOP

Balrogoz wrote:
 

*A JOP service may be excepted here.  I haven't thought that through completely, but I dislike the resultant union being called a 'marriage' 

?

Are you saying you only recognize church ceremonies as a marriage?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Old men love and adore

Old men love and adore petting kittens too. The power of pussy! Would / could anyone of healthy mind and body retire from enjoying mutual affection? 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Boon Docks wrote:    How

Boon Docks wrote:

 

   How about that, Pineapple thinks that "Mr. Happy" should be retired at about age 55.  Where is IAGAY ?!?

 

                                           

 

   And how many more members over 50 here ?

 

I just threw out a rough estimate, and thank you for that mental image.

 

 

Quote:

 

    Pineapple, do you really think a woman should divorce her husband because of an affair ?  That is really sad !

 

                                            

 

   There is way too much money  $$$   involved for a divorce.  There might also be just a lifetime of memories and family to consider.  After divorce, life can be very difficult to resume any normal activities.

 

Maybe not a good idea in this case since Johnny is a lawyer.

 

I'm pretty sure he willingly went into the marriage, and I'm pretty sure he remembered he was married while his, in grade 7 terms,  'weanie' was 'waxed'


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
I always find it funny that

I always find it funny that people get so mad when a politician is caught lying. That to me, is like getting mad at a doctor for diagnosing a disease.

 


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Hamby, you continue to

Hamby, you continue to impress me non-stop in your discussions about this subject.  Kudos.  I wonder what Rich Woods would say about all this being that he has such an open marriage.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)