Do You Care If Your Elected Officials Cheat on Their Wives?

[satindesire]

Thank you.

I do piss everyone off eventually.

But I don't piss off everyone ALL the time and that is something.

Hey, I've had more than my fair share of controversy. I'm more conservative than the gen pop here and felt the lash of "what are you, fucking STUPID?!" when someone doesn't like what I have to say.

I sympathize.

 

[Recidiva]

You didn't just comment on adultery. You made repeated, explicit, pejorative generalizations about the alleged character flaws of people who commit, or have committed, adultery.

And then complained about being personally attacked, when someone responded by telling you to fuck off.

For the record, I don't think your pejorative generalizations make you a "big meanie." I think they indicate that you are prone to self-serving, sanctimonious, absurdly over-simplified assertions.

And your complaining about being personally attacked, in this context, shows you to be passive aggressive, and hypocritical to boot.

Okay. I'm okay with that.

I do make a distinction between general comments and opinions and personal attacks. And generally in debate, that's called ad hominem and it's something I point out.

Do you think telling me to fuck off is appropriate? I said it was understandable and I get it and I wouldn't do the same back. I haven't attacked Nezatch, who I really respect, personally. And half of what I said as a joke was taken literally as insult, and I find that also to be a choice.

But that's the point of my argument too. What's understandable isn't what's right or admirable or deserving of praise.

Or should I have just retaliated with something equally silly and irrelevant and gotten that "human" vote of "gosh, she has a heart too. Awww."

I don't need sympathy or sensitivity training. I'd be interested in facts. But I'm not getting them, so oh well.

At least by my definition, that doesn't make me a hypocrite, that just makes me abrasive, irreverent of other people's sacred held beliefs when they're self-serving...and irritating, which I already know.

 

[Recidiva]

Hey, I've had more than my fair share of controversy. I'm more conservative than the gen pop here and felt the lash of "what are you, fucking STUPID?!" when someone doesn't like what I have to say.

I sympathize.

Well, I could pick a fight with you by pointing out that saying this population is not more overly sexed than the Average Joe. It just has a tendecy to think it is.

But I let that slide 'cause I'm cool that way.

I don't think I come here for sympathy. In fact I probably shuck it off like water on a duck's back if I come in contact with it.

I come here for interesting words and so far, this is pretty cool.

 

[satindesire]

Well, I could pick a fight with you by pointing out that saying this population is not more overly sexed than the Average Joe. It just has a tendecy to think it is.

But I let that slide 'cause I'm cool that way.

I don't think I come here for sympathy. In fact I probably shuck it off like water on a duck's back if I come in contact with it.

I come here for interesting words and so far, this is pretty cool.

I know you didn't come here for pats on the back. Doesn't mean I can't give them to you anyway. You don't have to be defensive you know. I'm your friend here.

 

[Recidiva]

I know you didn't come here for pats on the back. Doesn't mean I can't give them to you anyway. You don't have to be defensive you know. I'm your friend here.

That really wasn't defensive, that was self-deprecating humor. At least it was in my head.

But right now the sympathy card is what I'm avoiding. I actually think it's been abused in this thread. And I do have a tendency to avoid it in my reality as well. For lots of reasons, and it's not rejection of it, it's just a different mechanic entirely. It's avoiding having emotion cloud judgment, and I can't say I'm the best at it, but in debate mode, I tend to reject it, unfortunately for those offering it as a gift, so I apologize for being brusque. It's reflex and not intentional in any way to be insulting.

To be clear, this isn't a crusade and I'm not converting. This isn't a sympathy ploy where I was a broken hearted cheated-uponer where I'm going to bang that drum. I'm stating an opinion on a thread title and then defending it. If someone made a brilliant point that I hadn't considered and changed my view (and that's happened often) I'd say so and I'd acknowledge that. That's what I'm after, that's why I'm here. Sense. But this is now about sensibility (and my lack thereof) and I find that to be what it is. Okay.

I don't need agreement (although really, it's sweet and I appreciate it, I do, and I also appreciate friendship and gestures of kindness) but it's nice to have it.

This is really about me putting words out there into the ring and see which words make it out the least bloody.

The conversation has taken turns I didn't predict, in ways like: nobody commented about how cheating is nonconsent. That's interesting to me. Not stop the world I'm getting off interesting, but in a "I'm watching Hulu and working and playing Everquest II and refreshing this thread" interesting.

But people's responses have left so many loose strings that I can't help pulling at them like a kitten because that's what I do. I'm looking not for the emotion and the justification, but the genuine sense behind the issue. I get the pain and the justification and the hardship. I really do. That's not interesting to me right now because...well, because it's not the issue. I've tried to state that several times by saying "What's the title of the thread, and this is why I'm answering the way I am..." and I'm sorta assuming there's some genuine wisdom behind all the noise and I'm not getting to it.

So like an Anne Rice novel, this just might be a whole lotta long about nothing. I should know better, but I don't. I'll just keep playing with the string until the thread stops being of interest or I'm sure I am not going to read any further.

Yes, these are people's lives, but if they don't want to talk to me, nobody's gonna make 'em.

 

[JMohegan]

Okay. I'm okay with that.

I do make a distinction between general comments and opinions and personal attacks. And generally in debate, that's called ad hominem and it's something I point out.

Do you think telling me to fuck off is appropriate? I said it was understandable and I get it and I wouldn't do the same back. I haven't attacked Nezatch, who I really respect, personally. And half of what I said as a joke was taken literally as insult, and I find that also to be a choice.

But that's the point of my argument too. What's understandable isn't what's right or admirable or deserving of praise.

Or should I have just retaliated with something equally silly and irrelevant and gotten that "human" vote of "gosh, she has a heart too. Awww."

I don't need sympathy or sensitivity training. I'd be interested in facts. But I'm not getting them, so oh well.

At least by my definition, that doesn't make me a hypocrite, that just makes me abrasive, irreverent of other people's sacred held beliefs when they're self-serving...and irritating, which I already know.

If you tell a person: "You are selfish and cruel and incapable of comprehending the importance of honesty and integrity," then they have a right to tell you to fuck off.

If you make those comments about that person's best friend, lover, relative, whatever, then they have the right to tell you to fuck off for that, too.

Sure, "fuck off" is a conversation stopper. That's the point. The person is essentially saying: "You're being so unreasonable that I've got no interest in talking to you at this time."

 

[Recidiva]

If you tell a person: "You are selfish and cruel and incapable of comprehending the importance of honesty and integrity," then they have a right to tell you to fuck off.

If you make those comments about that person's best friend, lover, relative, whatever, then they have the right to tell you to fuck off for that, too.

Sure, "fuck off" is a conversation stopper. That's the point. The person is essentially saying: "You're being so unreasonable that I've got no interest in talking to you at this time."

That'd be relevant if I said that. I didn't.

The absence of "you are" is the key here. Also the fact that it meant something to me, not that it meant something universally and means the same thing or should mean the same thing to everyone.

I wasn't the one who went to "you are."

And to claim I did is incorrect.

I actually did say "I think you're being unreasonable" instead of other options.

 

[JMohegan]

That'd be relevant if I said that. I didn't.

The absence of "you are" is the key here. Also the fact that it meant something to me, not that it meant something universally and means the same thing or should mean the same thing to everyone.

I wasn't the one who went to "you are."

And to claim I did is incorrect.

I actually did say "I think you're being unreasonable" instead of other options.

See post 190.

If I say "people who get divorced have proven themselves to be incapable of sustained personal commitment, and clearly don't understand the importance of honoring vows" - and you've been divorced - aren't I saying that you, Recidiva, are incapable of sustained personal commitment and clearly don't understand the importance of honoring vows?

 

[Recidiva]

See post 190.

If I say "people who get divorced have proven themselves to be incapable of sustained personal commitment, and clearly don't understand the importance of honoring vows" - and you've been divorced - aren't I saying that you, Recidiva, are incapable of sustained personal commitment and clearly don't understand the importance of honoring vows?

People say that all the time and I don't take personal offense. It's probably true in certain situations and I might argue exceptions or not argue at all. There is a huge difference between starting a thread saying "Recidiva has proven herself incapable of sustained personal commitment" or saying "RESOLVED - people who get divorced..." One is a personal attack, one is an opinion inviting debate.

I will argue it logically and by example, without resorting to door slamming and tears and recriminations about how vile people who think that are.

If someone feels that way about me, that's okay and I guess I'm just not their bestest buddy. Free will and choices are encouraged. If you can defend your viewpoint, awesome. If all you can do is say "But...it's COMPLICATED" then I have no sympathy. That's not an argument, that's a smokescreen.

It's not the same thing. It really isn't. Not to me. If it is to other people, I think they need some reading comprehension help and a side trip into learning what "projection" is.

In this case I'm looking for logical arguments as to why I'm wrong in my reasoning, experience or opinion based on reality.

I've yet to see someone tackle how you get both sides of a cheating story when one person in that story doesn't know there's cheating...or how cheating could be considered consensual...or any other of a number of logical points I find relevant to the question at hand.

Instead it's turned out to be about my lack of social sensitivity and how I can insult a whole swath of people by characterizing their behavior as indicating something negative.

Yes. I do that. I consider adultery to be something negative. I consider lots of things to be something overall negative, and the point here is - who can really point out logically that adultery is positive...anyone?

But I'm the bad guy. No, I don't buy it.

Not logically, not emotionally, not in a house, not with a mouse...

 

[JMohegan]

People say that all the time and I don't take personal offense. It's probably true in certain situations and I might argue exceptions or not argue at all. There is a huge difference between starting a thread saying "Recidiva has proven herself incapable of sustained personal commitment" or saying "RESOLVED - people who get divorced..." One is a personal attack, one is an opinion inviting debate.

I will argue it logically and by example, without resorting to door slamming and tears and recriminations about how vile people who think that are.

Get over yourself, Recidiva. No one's in tears, and no one is calling you vile.

 

[Recidiva]

Get over yourself, Recidiva. No one's in tears, and no one is calling you vile.

Okay, then hypocritical and passive aggressive.

Still not buying it. But if I'm really hypocritical and passive aggressive, I probably wouldn't.

 

[eastern sun]

The conversation has taken turns I didn't predict, in ways like: nobody commented about how cheating is nonconsent. That's interesting to me.

I don't think the "cheating is nonconsent" argument holds up in the realm of politics. Spouses of politicians must be aware of the arena they're living in. It goes with the territory and has for eons.

 

[Keroin]

If all you can do is say "But...it's COMPLICATED" then I have no sympathy. That's not an argument, that's a smokescreen.

In this case I'm looking for logical arguments as to why I'm wrong in my reasoning, experience or opinion based on reality.

I've yet to see someone tackle how you get both sides of a cheating story when one person in that story doesn't know there's cheating...or how cheating could be considered consensual...or any other of a number of logical points I find relevant to the question at hand.

When I was 21 I married a man who would turn out to be an alcoholic, an abusive one. I was young, stupid and had not the highest self-esteem. In a very short time, he “broke me”. I was without friends and isolated from my family. For anyone who’s tempted to say, “Why didn’t you just leave him?” my answer is that if you’ve never been in that psychological space before you can never know how impossible “just leaving” feels. Logic is irrelevant sometimes - and I say that as someone who loves logic.

At the lowest point, I had a short affair with a male friend of mine. I say short because the affair gave me just enough self-esteem and courage to realize I had to take steps to try to repair my marriage or leave. The man I had the affair with also offered me the first opportunity to talk about all the problems I was dealing with. Admittedly, this was not the ideal solution but it was a solution and it motivated me to face some serious flaws in my marriage and in myself.

I did end the affair, sought counseling – both marital and substance abuse related – for my husband and I, and got my act together. The marriage ended but my life began anew.

I’m not proud of breaking my marriage contract and lying to someone I supposedly loved but I am thankful that I had something, anything to help me out of a very dark time. Mine was not a case of middle-aged angst or heartless cruelty; it was a case of a naïve, badly wounded human who needed some love. Feel free to throw all the stones you want at me. I’ve made peace with my mistakes.

My affair was non consensual but so was my husband’s drinking and abuse. And, no, two wrongs don’t make a right but they do, sometimes, make things “complicated”.

So, forgive me, but I’ve been on both sides and neither was black and white, and neither was fun. As a result, I don’t make moral judgments about infidelity. I’ll leave that to those who are without sin.

And yes, Recidiva, I did find much of what you have put forth here personally insulting.

 

[Recidiva]

When I was 21 I married a man who would turn out to be an alcoholic, an abusive one. I was young, stupid and had not the highest self-esteem. In a very short time, he “broke me”. I was without friends and isolated from my family. For anyone who’s tempted to say, “Why didn’t you just leave him?” my answer is that if you’ve never been in that psychological space before you can never know how impossible “just leaving” feels. Logic is irrelevant sometimes - and I say that as someone who loves logic.

At the lowest point, I had a short affair with a male friend of mine. I say short because the affair gave me just enough self-esteem and courage to realize I had to take steps to try to repair my marriage or leave. The man I had the affair with also offered me the first opportunity to talk about all the problems I was dealing with. Admittedly, this was not the ideal solution but it was a solution and it motivated me to face some serious flaws in my marriage and in myself.

I did end the affair, sought counseling – both marital and substance abuse related – for my husband and I, and got my act together. The marriage ended but my life began anew.

I’m not proud of breaking my marriage contract and lying to someone I supposedly loved but I am thankful that I had something, anything to help me out of a very dark time. Mine was not a case of middle-aged angst or heartless cruelty; it was a case of a naïve, badly wounded human who needed some love. Feel free to throw all the stones you want at me. I’ve made peace with my mistakes.

My affair was non consensual but so was my husband’s drinking and abuse. And, no, two wrongs don’t make a right but they do, sometimes, make things “complicated”.

So, forgive me, but I’ve been on both sides and neither was black and white, and neither was fun. As a result, I don’t make moral judgments about infidelity. I’ll leave that to those who are without sin.

And yes, Recidiva, I did find much of what you have put forth here personally insulting.

At that point in your life where you were having that affair, do you feel you were together enough to hold public office? Would you have run for office? Would you have asked for my vote? Would you have concealed your affair to gain my vote?

I know it's complicated, I know it's human, I know it's understandable.

People can take as much misunderstood personal insult and dish it out as much as they want. You've certainly called me morally superior yourself. But I don't see the need to back down while someone goes on their way trying to make adulterers feel like everything's just peachy and it's fine and I shouldn't be concerned or care because...I'll hurt someone's feelings or question their social judgment.

If you want to be bluntly honest and clear about complications I appreciate that and take that as an attempt to be specific. I've been positive and I've been negative. To wash away everything understanding, positive and personally felt about the difficulty of living I've said is something that's being done in an attempt to avoid the issue and focus on the emotion of the issue. I didn't cause the emotion. This isn't about moral superiority, it's about the ability to hold a responsible office.

If someone wants to say what you just said, that's brave and honest and all those wonderful things that come with life and learning and choices. I'm actually going to not address personal feelings because I know you can just go get a cocktail when it gets unpleasant for you, that's clear. If you want to pretend I didn't say anything at all that could be understanding, that's your prerogative, but it's not true.

If you want to say what you say and then tack on "But I'm going to continue to cheat, vote for me!" I will decline.

And if people cannot see the difference between taking a vulnerable, conflicted person in the midst of making complicated choices and then taking that person and putting them in a position to make even bigger, more complicated choices on other people's behalf, I do not have that problem. Get therapy. Get help. Make smarter choices. Do not hire a campaign staff.

And if someone wants to persist in that course, guess what? I can do nothing about it. I have no sway and no hold and no influence on anybody's lives.

I know I don't get a vote on your behavior, do you know that? I'm not anybody's mommy who is grounding people. My opinion counts for nothing here, so expressing it isn't going to hold up anybody's day.

But if you want to address me with the logic of my points, okay. I am free to disagree.

If anybody wants sympathy for their complications and the difficulty of life, I believe I've expressed that several times. Recommended a better way, recommended help and therapy and problem solving.

I am however not personally offended, but flat out appalled at some of the arguments and how thin the justification and thought are, and how thick the excuse and entitlement is.

If someone now wants to say "Recidiva just called me thick and entitled!" that's fine. It's all part of the same bullshit and I don't need to buy it.

If someone wants to express those complications and be honest about how it could have been done better or how it's different now, that's cool.

If anybody wants to show me where adultery is perfectly understandable, absolutely ordinary and worked out great for everyone involved and a voter pool should be GRATEFUL to get an adulterer, shoot.

If someone wants to persist in saying that's just the best life ever gets and I should pity them, they get my pity. Just not my vote.

And if that's so unreasonable that I'm a passive aggressive hypocrite who should fuck off, hurts people's feelings and doesn't get the point, you know...I'm okay with that.

 

[Recidiva]

I don't think the "cheating is nonconsent" argument holds up in the realm of politics. Spouses of politicians must be aware of the arena they're living in. It goes with the territory and has for eons.

Then those are the people with the open arrangments and I'm fine with that too.

But then when it comes out in the news the husband and wife should say "We have an open marriage, meet my lover Carlo, who has been consoling me lo these past few weeks of coverage."

That's not what I've seen.

 

[satindesire]

I don't think the "cheating is nonconsent" argument holds up in the realm of politics. Spouses of politicians must be aware of the arena they're living in. It goes with the territory and has for eons.

I really don't understand this POV at all. That's like saying the wife of a politician deserves to be cheated on because she knows who she married and she knows he's GOING to cheat.

To me, that's like saying marriage is pointless. Vows are pointless. So when Kobe Bryant screwed that girl in the hotel without his wife's permission, that 5 million dollar blue rock on her hand wasn't an apology, it was just because. She knew he was going to cheat, because it goes with the territory??!

I don't think ANYONE gets married with a 100% assurance that their husband/wife is going to cheat. At least, I'd like to hope so. I certainly wouldn't marry a man I knew wasn't going to uphold some sort of standard of self-control and respect for me.

 

[BiaTcHiNFiRe]

I don't care about our politics, they all SUCK!

So I don't give a damn who fucks who. lol

 

[Recidiva]

I really don't understand this POV at all. That's like saying the wife of a politician deserves to be cheated on because she knows who she married and she knows he's GOING to cheat.

To me, that's like saying marriage is pointless. Vows are pointless. So when Kobe Bryant screwed that girl in the hotel without his wife's permission, that 5 million dollar blue rock on her hand wasn't an apology, it was just because. She knew he was going to cheat, because it goes with the territory??!

I don't think ANYONE gets married with a 100% assurance that their husband/wife is going to cheat. At least, I'd like to hope so. I certainly wouldn't marry a man I knew wasn't going to uphold some sort of standard of self-control and respect for me.

If someone's view is that all politicians are entirely corrupt, living only for public adulation and power, and we should expect that and just let them do it so we don't have to make positive change, have any standards or expect people to live up to their responsibiliites...that's a problem.

I'm not asking for perfection, never making mistakes or not being flawed. I'm asking for an acknowledgement that striving to correct our mistakes and make a better future is what politics is supposed to be about.

If you think all people suck and everyone's a hypocrite so why hold anyone to a higher standard or try to make things better, why give a damn about your vote at all?

 

[satindesire]

If you think all people suck and everyone's a hypocrite so why hold anyone to a higher standard or try to make things better, why give a damn about your vote at all?

Yeah, no kidding. *nods*

 

[Keroin]

At that point in your life where you were having that affair, do you feel you were together enough to hold public office? Would you have run for office? Would you have asked for my vote? Would you have concealed your affair to gain my vote?

I know it's complicated, I know it's human, I know it's understandable.

People can take as much misunderstood personal insult and dish it out as much as they want. You've certainly called me morally superior yourself. But I don't see the need to back down while someone goes on their way trying to make adulterers feel like everything's just peachy and it's fine and I shouldn't be concerned or care because...I'll hurt someone's feelings or question their social judgment.

If you want to be bluntly honest and clear about complications I appreciate that and take that as an attempt to be specific. I've been positive and I've been negative. To wash away everything understanding, positive and personally felt about the difficulty of living I've said is something that's being done in an attempt to avoid the issue and focus on the emotion of the issue. I didn't cause the emotion. This isn't about moral superiority, it's about the ability to hold a responsible office.

If someone wants to say what you just said, that's brave and honest and all those wonderful things that come with life and learning and choices. I'm actually going to not address personal feelings because I know you can just go get a cocktail when it gets unpleasant for you, that's clear. If you want to pretend I didn't say anything at all that could be understanding, that's your prerogative, but it's not true.

If you want to say what you say and then tack on "But I'm going to continue to cheat, vote for me!" I will decline.

And if people cannot see the difference between taking a vulnerable, conflicted person in the midst of making complicated choices and then taking that person and putting them in a position to make even bigger, more complicated choices on other people's behalf, I do not have that problem. Get therapy. Get help. Make smarter choices. Do not hire a campaign staff.

And if someone wants to persist in that course, guess what? I can do nothing about it. I have no sway and no hold and no influence on anybody's lives.

I know I don't get a vote on your behavior, do you know that? I'm not anybody's mommy who is grounding people. My opinion counts for nothing here, so expressing it isn't going to hold up anybody's day.

But if you want to address me with the logic of my points, okay. I am free to disagree.

If anybody wants sympathy for their complications and the difficulty of life, I believe I've expressed that several times. Recommended a better way, recommended help and therapy and problem solving.

I am however not personally offended, but flat out appalled at some of the arguments and how thin the justification and thought are, and how thick the excuse and entitlement is.

If someone now wants to say "Recidiva just called me thick and entitled!" that's fine. It's all part of the same bullshit and I don't need to buy it.

If someone wants to express those complications and be honest about how it could have been done better or how it's different now, that's cool.

If anybody wants to show me where adultery is perfectly understandable, absolutely ordinary and worked out great for everyone involved and a voter pool should be GRATEFUL to get an adulterer, shoot.

If someone wants to persist in saying that's just the best life ever gets and I should pity them, they get my pity. Just not my vote.

And if that's so unreasonable that I'm a passive aggressive hypocrite who should fuck off, hurts people's feelings and doesn't get the point, you know...I'm okay with that.

You asked for specifics, based in reality and I provided that. You claimed that people are using "complicated" as a smokescreen and so I told you about my experience to demonstrate why I consider it an argument, not a smokescreen.

I was not in office nor running for office at the time of my affair nor do I feel I have been qualified, at any point in my life, to do so. I was, however, doing a job that required people to trust me, with their lives. They did trust me and they were right to do so because, despite what was happening with me personally, I gave my job 100% and nothing less, ever. Yet, you have put forth the opinion that I should not have been trusted and should not have been allowed to do that job based on my personal behaviour.

If you do not want to vote for a politician that cheats, fine. I have no interest in changing your opinion. But that is not the only opinion you have expressed here, regarding infidelity, and some of those opinions are personally insulting to me and others. Whether you care about that or not is up to you.

 

[Recidiva]

You asked for specifics, based in reality and I provided that. You claimed that people are using "complicated" as a smokescreen and so I told you about my experience to demonstrate why I consider it an argument, not a smokescreen.

I was not in office or running for office at the time of my affair nor do I feel I have been qualified, at any point in my life, to do so. I was, however, doing a job that required people to trust me, with their lives. They did trust me and they were right to do so because, despite what was happening with me personally, I gave my job 100% and nothing less, ever. Yet, you have put forth the opinion that I should not have been trusted and should not have been allowed to do that job based on my personal behaviour.

If you do not want to vote for a politician that cheats, fine. I have no interest in changing your opinion. But that is not the only opinion you have expressed here, regarding infidelity, and some of those opinions are personally insulting to me and others. Whether you care about that or not is up to you.

Okay. I am not looking to change anybody's mind. I appreciate your honesty and I've attempted to extend the same. You're not defending it or saying "Yay Infidelity!" Nor are you excusing or justifying your behavior or anybody else's. I think you're assuming I am condemning more than I am, and that's just my lack of ability to use words good. I'll have to live with that. I don't even know WHAT to apologize for, so I am not going to do so as a blanket statement. That would make me in my opinion a coward unable to get to the reality of something, and I'll just cave and apologize so people will be nice to me. That's not me.

You're also a deeply opinionated person who has made any number of statements regarding the way I live my life or my lifestyle and all sorts of judgments on that. I know you don't like my insular lifestyle or my being overly connected to the internet and that you consider those things to be character flaws that should be discouraged.

That's just...Keroin. I'm not going to ask you to change your views, I am going to state mine and defend them. I also don't think it has a thing to do with me, it has to do with what Keroin thinks and how she sees the world and I respect that. I'm not telling you to be different than what you are or expecting some great epiphany where Keroin suddenly wants to sit behind a computer all day like I do, live and think exactly like me. Not only is that not desired, it'd be boring as all hell. Nor do I expect that you actually approve of all my life choices just so you can shoot the shit on a web-based forum.

I don't have to agree with every word you say or your lifestyle or your opinions to think you're cool or worth talking to or whatever it is we're doing here.

So I don't marry you or don't vote for you and we wouldn't be compatible as roommates. I don't think any of that's on the table anyway.

There isn't a single person I agree with all the time and aspects of my personality are consciously or unconsciously, overtly or covertly, rightly or wrongly, insulted often here. I find that...typically human and that's just the way it goes.

If everyone here could realize it's not about THEM, it's about my opinion of voting for someone, and go from there, fantastic. If you can't, okay. Then I'm probably not a good person to talk to anyway.

Nezatch tells me I am entirely out of touch with those in pain, socially disenfranchised and sexually different. I don't take offense, but I reject her argument because it's flat out wrong.

JMohegan tells me I'm a hypocrite when hypocrite means saying something and doing something else. I'm advocating saying what you mean and meaning what you say.

Syd tells me gently I'm not getting it but can't explain. As a Yankee in a half-southern family, gosh, that's never happened to ME before. I'm immune. Use your words.

I'm opinionated. Granted. Other people are opinionated, and they can dish it out on many subjects, but can't take it? They expect clear statements and arguments and mock emotional displays and muddy logic until they themselves feel they have to do them, then it's justified?

These are extremely opinionated, outspoken people, saying I'm out of bounds by being opinionated and outspoken. But each one of them has managed to condemn one aspect of me to hell one way or the other in the course of my time here. Are we keeping score or should I go back and sniff about how opinionated, outspoken people are mean to me personally? That's ridiculous.

You can choose to take personal insult. I can rephrase or reclarify as often as requested.

As I don't know what to apologize for...no...I'm not going to apologize.

As to whether I care, yes and no. I care about exactly as much as the person I'm speaking to in general. If they don't care and they've written me off, I think that's the end of it and unless it's clarified for me, I drop it. I have no problem with apology when I see what I've done and why it's wrong. I KNOW I've apologized, I make a point of apologizing when I get it.

But I am not going to do so because I'm getting cold shoulder and icy glare as an argument. That doesn't work.

 

[eastern sun]

I really don't understand this POV at all. That's like saying the wife of a politician deserves to be cheated on because she knows who she married and she knows he's GOING to cheat.

To me, that's like saying marriage is pointless. Vows are pointless. So when Kobe Bryant screwed that girl in the hotel without his wife's permission, that 5 million dollar blue rock on her hand wasn't an apology, it was just because. She knew he was going to cheat, because it goes with the territory??!

I don't think ANYONE gets married with a 100% assurance that their husband/wife is going to cheat. At least, I'd like to hope so. I certainly wouldn't marry a man I knew wasn't going to uphold some sort of standard of self-control and respect for me.

I don't think anyone "deserves" being cheated on, but I do think that certain cultures accept certain practices. I think, for instance, that Hilary Clinton accepted her husband's adultery in exchange for the position it gave her, despite the obvious humiliation. And I think large numbers of women have accepted adultery (without wanting it or "opening" their marriage) in exchange for social/political/financial power. Should we think of those women as victims?

 

[rosco rathbone]

Are they a god-fearing, bible-thumping, family-values asshat? Then it matters to me if they cheat.

I've always felt that people on the left just never really "got it" when it comes to this. It's not about being perfect to those people. It's about epousing the "right values" and then getting right with God once they slip up. There's no hypocrisy there...the system is designed to work that way (party on Saturday night and repent Sunday morning.)

 

[Recidiva]

Yet, you have put forth the opinion that I should not have been trusted and should not have been allowed to do that job based on my personal behaviour.

I don't even know what your job was. Was it as an elected official? Were you subject to background checks, blackmail and media attention?

Otherwise I don't see how it applies.

 

[Recidiva]

I've always felt that people on the left just never really "got it" when it comes to this. It's not about being perfect to those people. It's about epousing the "right values" and then getting right with God once they slip up. There's no hypocrisy there...the system is designed to work that way (party on Saturday night and repent Sunday morning.)

Then these guys should make a policy where you "get right with the IRS" by apologizing for tax fraud and saying two Hail 1099s.

Otherwise, yes. Forgiveness as policy doesn't usually work.