Latest Trump Is No Worse Than Earlier Trump
The latest exposé of Trump's vulgarity is a good thing because it will offend even more people even more deeply. Fine by me. The offended should vote for somebody else--like Hilary or Jill.
Sexually crude as Donald Trump might be, sexual crudeness shouldn't automatically or effectively disqualify him from being an effective president.
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and (Bill) Clinton all had mistresses and/or sex on the side. I suppose other presidents did too. Active, philandering sex lives didn't prevent any of these men from being an effective politician and Chief Executive. Maybe it even helped? All of these men kept their extramarital activities under wraps (with the help of a cooperative press) because anything less than strict fidelity to their wives would have been viewed as scandalous--just ask the Clintons.
Trump offends, but reasonably discrete sexual behavior is mostly irrelevant to the performance of the job. Of course, it's getting harder to be reasonably discrete, thanks to ubiquitous cameras, annoying open mics, tape recorders running constantly, nosy journalists blabbing every fact they find, and so forth.
Bill Clinton's problem was publicity, not satisfied concupiscence. Nobody has suggested that Monica's magnificent blow jobs (or hand jobs or proper fucking, whatever they were doing) interfered with the management of national affairs.
Sexually crude as Donald Trump might be, sexual crudeness shouldn't automatically or effectively disqualify him from being an effective president.
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and (Bill) Clinton all had mistresses and/or sex on the side. I suppose other presidents did too. Active, philandering sex lives didn't prevent any of these men from being an effective politician and Chief Executive. Maybe it even helped? All of these men kept their extramarital activities under wraps (with the help of a cooperative press) because anything less than strict fidelity to their wives would have been viewed as scandalous--just ask the Clintons.
Trump offends, but reasonably discrete sexual behavior is mostly irrelevant to the performance of the job. Of course, it's getting harder to be reasonably discrete, thanks to ubiquitous cameras, annoying open mics, tape recorders running constantly, nosy journalists blabbing every fact they find, and so forth.
Bill Clinton's problem was publicity, not satisfied concupiscence. Nobody has suggested that Monica's magnificent blow jobs (or hand jobs or proper fucking, whatever they were doing) interfered with the management of national affairs.
Comments (469)
In all seriousness though, no, sex scandals should not disqualify presidents because last i checked sex scandals were not inherently criminal. You might lose more than half your shit in the divorce, but that's for the spouse to decide (if a divorce is wanted), just like how it's the voting public's right to decide who they want to put in that most heated of seats, regardless of whether or not he has the appearance AND brain AND sex drive of a red-assed-orange-coated mountain baboon.
Unless you can show me the law where womanizing disqualifies you from the presidency, I'm actually inclined to believe that America loves to care but in the end really does not. See: Bill Clinton.
You're right though, this is no worse that all we have seen before from trump. The new great wall for me is enough to not take him seriously as a thinker on policy, which leaves me to speculate whether or not he is a calculating genius for being able to get where he has gotten. But then I remember where and why this all started... Hillary -"It's my turn"- Clinton. She bullied sanders out of what seemed to be a sure win against trump in the general election. The constant litany of serious scandals both in her party, the charity organization her hubby founded, and in the performance of her own official governmental duties would be grounds to have anyone else laughed straight out of North America and into some Tahitian dive bar.
Where m'ah country gone? (Actually I'm canadian, so it would be pronounced: "Where's aboots is your country gone to eh?".
Edit: meant general election, not the primary (proof I am Canadian)
But then again, when you factor in that 95% of TV advertisement spending leading up to the election is by Clinton, you've got to suspect 95% bias.
I am genuinely concerned that someone whose Presidential campaign is 20% funded by Saudi Arabia, whose personal charity received huge donations from Saudi, and who claims Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, becomes president.
...and where do the Saudi's get that money from in the first place?
If you follow the money trail, we are all responsible really as we buy the oil.
Whilst money is still the main method used to assess one's worth in this world, nothing will change.
Okay, I disagree with that. It is well known that most people follow their leaders at least to a certain extent and seek to emulate them.
Quoting Moliere
This is besides the point. The question was precisely in what circumstances they do it, not whether or not they like having sex...
Though I agree that "who cares?", I don't think that the offense of DT was extra-marital sexuality, but his flouting sexual assault just because he happened to have the power to do so while famous.
Can you demonstrate that? I mean, suppose it were not well known. I obviously don't know it, because I don't believe it.
How do you determine who counts as "most people" and what does it mean to follow a leader? And how does that differ from following a leader "to a certain extent" -- and isn't that actually different from emulation? Is it well known that most people seek to emulate the people they follow?
I think you're taking too much for granted, and oversimplifying how people actually behave. Even (or perhaps, especially -- its more complicated) en masse.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013826126058
The Alure of Toxic Leaders
Now let's see if this changes anything - of course it doesn't - because what's happening with you is that you don't want to believe it in the first place, as it is ruinous to your political beliefs.
Yup, that's exactly what I said! (Dammit, why's there no facepalm emoji?)
“Look, this is alpha male boasting. It’s the kind of thing, if we are being honest, that men do. They sit around and have a drink and they talk like this.
“By the way, quite a lot of women say things amongst themselves that they would not want to see on Fox News, or the front page of a newspaper. I’m not pretending it’s good – it’s ugly, it is ugly.”
As I understand it, (though I haven't heard the exact recording of what he said), the issue is not one of "womanizing", but that what Trump described is apprehended as an act of sexual harassment, at least, if not assault.
If only this Crooked Media would be as outraged about Clinton's rape accusations as they are about Trump's comments...
Hillary hasn't been accused of raping anyone in the non-metaphorical sense of the word. She's running, not Bill.
Beyond that, it is her word against his.
As it is in every case of sexual harassment. Who do you believe? Hillary is running as promoting herself as being the only candidate that cares about woman's issues yet sets out on campaign to attack her husband's accusers, takes money from countries that reject the idea of women's rights, etc.
If anything, her attacks on Trump for belittling women are hypocritical, and both would cancel each other out in this regard. So, then why vote for either one? It certainly can't be because one is more for women's rights than the other.
One lies about her lack of security with her email server, while the other makes rude comments about women, which many men have said in confidence with each other numerous times - and who knows what women say about men in confidence? Has any of us lowly citizens been at fault for putting our national security at risk as opposed to talking about some group in a half-joking way? Actually some of us have been caught putting our national security at risk and they were punished. Not so for Hillary. Trump was simply speaking honestly from experience. There are women who allow themselves to groped by someone if they are famous as opposed to not being famous.
And I don't buy the 'everyone does it so what's the big deal' argument. I work with very blue collar dudes - some whom ran with gangs in their younger years - and of course the topic of sexual conquests comes up. We're not talking about the latest books we've read. But even amongst the 'rabble' there's generally a certain level of respect when family is concerned, even a stranger's. Now some of these guys probably would try to fuck a married woman, but they wouldn't brag about it, and they definitely wouldn't receive praise if they did. They'd be seen as punks.
Maybe this type of sexual deviance is less prone to censure amongst upper crust society. I don't run in those circles and so may be naive about what takes place in their marriages, which, to stereotype, are probably grounded in wealth and other fickle things. My point is that cheating on your wife - or even sleeping with another man's wife - is in no context that I've been around a commendable thing. At least it's not for lower or middle class Americans. The much-maligned, unsophisticated masses still have a sense of chivalry when it comes to the treatment of married women and children. That's my experience at least. Cheating husbands (and wives) are not respected at all and are subject to some ostracism.
And the relevance of this is that his appeal is largely confined to those very blue collar voters whose values he claims to represent. There may be some admiration for his ability to get beautiful women, but I think he crossed a line or two here. Dude's a complete fraud.
Yes, Trump boasted about sexually assaulting woman. And most Trump supporters apparently think that's normal behaviour, which speaks volumes about their values or lack thereof. In this sense, Trump is actually a boon - not only is he destroying one of America's political hegemonies, he's very effectively highlighting the hypocrisy of so-called social conservatives*. That moral values have never been the driving force for the majority of this group is not something that surprises me. The in-group cohesion of ideology (of which "morality" and "religion" are just incidental parts) generally exists to serve only power and control. But the Trump situation exposes this more obviously by opening up a huge chasm between moral principle and political power that to one side or the other social conservatives are forced to jump. Note the ensuing mass abandonment of principle. Moral charlatans like Ben Carson and his ilk will happily vote for Trump no matter how much he apparently contradicts their moral values for a very simple reason. There is nothing of substance to contradict. Power trumps morality.
(*And at no substantive cost as - as I've said before - he is not in any real danger of winning.)
Yes he was indeed married. Of course, it's something that must be condemned. But if we are to condemn it, we have to condemn it everywhere. Trump is just a small case - seeing the high school kid brag about his sex life is just as bad. Seeing Hollywood actors shag each with everyone, divorcing 5 hundred times, etc. these are also disgusting displays of lack of morality, which need to be sanctioned. But apparently some folk think that we should only sanction Trump - which is precisely the problem. The fact that we live in a culture where this behaviour is not only acceptable, but is cool - that is the problem. Why was Trump acting that way? Because he knows that's how a "cool" person acts. And everyone knows that that's what being perceived as cool is - because we have a rotten culture. So the problem is with the media and Hollywood - who have created this culture - not with Trump who is merely an instantiation and end result of their work. Trump is a very useful tool - he exposes their hypocrisy.
Yeah for a very simple reason that he says he will appoint conservative Judges, he will put tougher restrictions on abortion, he will end illegal immigration, etc. What does Crooked say on the other hand? That she will appoint progressive Judges. She will license partial birth abortion. That's the problem. It's not about the single person, but also about who surrounds them. Social conservatives have a degree of control over Trump that they don't over Clinton. I don't really care if Trump himself will be immoral so long as he will be a useful tool for the social conservative agenda. It's a calculated sacrifice - lose a pawn, in order to win the game.
Not sure about you, but I think about what I did in my late teens and early twenties and cringe. Who the hell was that stupid kid? It was me, sadly. So 'boys will be boys' seems to hold to a certain extent, independent of the social context. And women can indeed be just as vulgar as men! I believe someone made that point earlier, and I think it's true. But I could be wrong about these things and would like to hear your arguments to the contrary.
I still think the 'average' person is a bit embarrassed that their their marriage failed, or that they were caught cheating, etc. These things happen, obviously, but extra-marital affairs are not seen as praiseworthy no matter how normalized and acceptable those who try to shape culture would like them to be. We're moving in that direction for sure, but there's still some lingering respect for the institution of marriage amongst the masses.
As the product of a failed marriage and a broken home, I think maintaining some respect for marriage is a good thing, however antiquated that sounds to progressives. I think my parent's divorce and subsequent remarriage(s) had a devastating impact upon me and my siblings, so we tend to share your conservatism on this issue up to a certain point. I don't care if it's between two men, two women, or between a woman and a man -- a lifelong commitment, regardless of circumstances, is a sublime and praiseworthy thing, and precisely because it's so 'unnatural' and difficult. But I don't want to sidetrack this topic so I'll leave it at that.
Quoting Agustino
Now you say...
Quoting Agustino
If your goal is to prove my point, then by contradicting yourself so openly you are doing it more effectively than I alone could . But then as I said before in regards to most social conservatives' "morality":
Quoting Baden
Quoting Agustino
I just don't get invited to upper crust soirees and cocktail parties either, so I don't know from personal experience what goes on up there. But surely CLASS is a significant issue here.
The relationship between the upper crust and the bottom crust is complicated. Rich men can access or create sexual opportunities for themselves, and defend themselves against consequences much more effectively than working class "little Joe and Jenny". On the other hand, men like Trump have more to lose, and these days are more likely to be featured in media reports.
Unfortunately, the GSS did not begin it's work back in the 1920s, so it's data is all post the 1960s sexual revolution.
How the upper crust influences the bottom crust is fairly uncertain. Presidents, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Clinton all had the makings of politically debilitating sex scandals, but in the case of FDR, Ike, and JFK, the press didn't publish what it knew. If people didn't know that JFK had a voracious sexual appetite, it couldn't affect their judgement. (Of course the Kennedy family had a huge impact on the popular culture outside the area of executive philandering.)
Sure - but it is the case for those who set the culture of society. This isn't YET the case with average lower or middle class folk (and depends who you're referring to, let's not forget that approximately 70% of black children are born out of wedlock for example). But culture seeps through from those who set it to everyone else in time. The lower or middle class folk will no longer be as you know them if things continue.
Quoting Erik
This depends on the culture of your society. Neither should teen boys objectify women - this is a failure of current society. Kids don't have role models. They're not educated about sex. They're not provided with the adequate moral examples, and the adequate literature. They don't look for example at the moral example set by John Wooden (the basketball coach) in regards to sexual morality - he, by his own words, only kissed one girl in his life. So it's not always that young men were so keenly interested in sex. It's only a hypersexualised culture, which puts sex on a pedestal, and tells men they have no worth if they don't engage in it that creates such situations.
There is no contradiction my friend. We don't live in an ideal world. We have to play the cards we're given. Yes, ideally the President should set the highest moral standards. Practically, in this specific case, it's less important what Trump's personal behaviour is, and more important what policies and attitudes he sets forth - why? Because neither alternative is any better in terms of personal behaviour.
Up that to 40-50% by most surveys for today's world.
Please site a legitimate research source here. Popular media publish lots of surveys on sexual behavior, but many of them have the very significant bias of voluntary participation, and no check on whether what they say is likely to be inflated. A voluntary, anonymous survey can be an opportunity for folks to flaunt behaviors and attitudes they wish they had, but in fact do not, just as income surveys that are anonymous and voluntary tend to inflate wealth.
That people wish they could have sex with a desired but unavailable partner is not THE problem. Wishing is just a characteristic of the human being. If wishes were horses the peasants would ride. Unfortunately for the peasants, wishing doesn't yield transportation so they have to walk, and wishing for a role in the hay doesn't doesn't result in sex. Talking about grabbing pussy isn't the same thing as actually grabbing pussy. Speech does not equal action.
This is a watershed issue: Wishes = sin vs. Actions = sin. I hold with actions -- not the model I was taught as a child. I found that model to be, basically, crazy-making. It's more effective, but not necessarily easier, to manage one's behavior.
No the fact that they wish this alone isn't the problem. The fact they would make this public as their wish that they are unashamed by - that is the problem. If they went to the priest and said I have this desire to have sex with another woman apart from my wife - that would be a good way to deal with it. If they actually did it, or worse they did it and/or proclaimed publicly they did/wanted to without being ashamed, but rather proudly proclaiming it - that is bad. Why? Because it means they have lost the moral standard from their vision. They no longer aspire to it, and have instead fallen into spiritual sloth.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I hold with both. It's one thing to say "oh I have this desire to have sex with a woman other than my wife, but I wish I didn't have such a desire", and a completely different thing to say "I just wish I could have sex with a woman other than my wife". The former may be natural - the latter is evil.
Then you [i]do[/I] really understand why these folks in the media are so outraged about what Trump said. You just disapprove of the focus being on Trump and not others. But others aren't running for president, and this is [I]news[/I]: as in, it has only just been revealed.
Crazy making only if you beat yourself up for example for wanting to have sex with another woman while married. There's nothing wrong with wanting it in itself - it's about acting that is wrong. If you do things in order to have it - that's wrong. If you tell folk that you wish you had it - that's also wrong (notice how the telling is an ACTION). But merely having that desire - sure - entertain it - why not? We shouldn't repress any desires. This doesn't mean we give into them - but that we entertain them. I don't think anyone reasonable could be against that. It's entirely conceivable that a desire arise in you over which you have no control - you have no control whether the desire to cheat on your wife is present. You just have control over what you do with it ... do you talk about it? Do you go ahead and cheat? etc. One can want many things - it doesn't mean one has to be the slave of that desire and give in to it...
Quoting Agustino
But your premise is false. There's no way that the liberal-progressive press haven't reported this kind of thing in a negative light. They would've done so more often than ring-wing news organisations. Just look at the people that try to downplay Trumps remarks, and similar remarks. Nigel Farage, the Fox goons...
I think the media is desperately trying to diffuse the situation. "It isn't what he said he did, but saying it is bad". That uncovers a few problems. It seems like the media doesn't want Trump to be completely ruined so they can keep the drama going and their viewers watching. It seems to be a "reality TV"/"soap opera" technique, something shocking gets people talking, then diffuse it until the next thing comes along. If anything is so terrible that it can be spun away, they simply refuse to report on it. If the media really wanted to bring down Trump, wouldn't they be pursuing that lawsuit accusing Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl in 1994? Whether the charges are true or not, that kind of scandal he couldn't recover, and when he got impeached ... then nothing.
I think sexual behavior is very important for leaders. As a society, we tend to emulate our leaders. Look at mainstream women's fashions over the past few decades and see how closely they tend to emulate first ladies. The atmosphere of society reflects the attitudes of the leadership. Kennedy's optimism rubbed off on the 1960's. Nixons dark pessimism rubbed off on the 1970's. The arrogance and greed of the 1980's can be traced to Reagan. Even today's progressive liberalism can be traced to the Obamas. Back in 1996, I thought that Clinton was washed up, (his sexual scandal was already coming to light), but he got elected anyway.
That doesn't mean I have traditional values. I would rather have a gay, bisexual or even transgender president than one who cheats on their spouse. What makes it worse is that she was a recent immigrant, almost half his age and very pregnant at the time. Then he thinks it is valid material to brag about -- to the host of a celebrity gossip TV show?
I figured out that Trump is best described as a malignant narcissist. This personality has a close association with bigotry, since the self-aggrandizing statements can be diffused to pride in their group. For a while, I tried to make sense of his statements by adding "... for white people" at the end of his slogans. "Make America Great Again", makes no sense if you believe America is already great. "Make America Great Again for white people", makes more sense, (restoring white privilege and American exceptionalism). But I guess he really means "Make America Great Again for Trump". His campaign promises are only attractive to bigots. I've decided that if anyone still supports Trump, it is because they are a bigots, too, and still cling to the fantasy that he will make all their bigoted dreams come true.
I imagine that if he became President, he would probably publicly break every one of his promises, except a couple of things that would serve his own interests. I'm sure all the Republicans still supporting him will turn on him right after the election and Trump will be constantly whining about how Washington is rigged against him.
But Trump has gotten an estimated $2 billion in free air time, and is the first candidate to go into a press "spin room" immediately after a debate to sell himself. But really, shouldn't all the people who donated to Trump's campaign be upset that he isn't making more or better ads to make up for all the times he gets his foot stuck in his mouth?
Quoting tom
If that is the criteria that is important to you, what about these facts?
[quote=Quartz]“Wealthy Muslims Helped Donald Trump Build His Empire,” Including Via Deals With Saudis And Qataris. A December 7 Quartz article detailed “some of the more prominent deals and partnerships with Muslim individuals, governments, and companies that have buoyed the Trump brand over the years.” These business ventures involve Qatar Airways, which has had a “‘corporate campus’ in the Trump Tower … since at least 2008;” two Saudi princes who live in Trump Tower; Saudi Prince Alwaleed, who took “majority control of New York’s Plaza hotel, [which gave] Trump ‘more breathing room with bank creditors’” and purchased Trump’s $18 million yacht; the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai; and Trump Home partnerships in “Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.” Quartz later reported that regional retailer Lifestyle stopped selling Trump Home products in its stores in Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other countries following Trump’s anti-Muslim comments.[/quote]
[quote=BuzzFeed]“Donald Trump Sought Investment Partnerships With Muammar al-Qaddafi And The Libyan Regime.” A BuzzFeed investigation posted on June 7 found that “Donald Trump sought investment partnerships with Muammar al-Qaddafi and the Libyan regime,” revealing that Trump “rented his Westchester estate to the dictator, tried to set up a face-to-face meeting, and took the Libyan ambassador golfing.” BuzzFeed reported that Trump “saw possibilities in a partnership with the Libyan Investment Authority, which invests profits from Libya’s lucrative oil industry” and that he ultimately sought “to gain access to Qaddafi, who was in a position to release billions in investment capital.”
[/quote]
Also, don't forget that he asked Russians to hack Hillary's emails -- and they apparently complied, (why do the Russians want Trump to win?).
Two billion dollars worth of pontiffs and pundits talking about the size of his hands isn't exactly worth 2 billion to trump now is it?
It's much more accurate to say that he got airtime for two reasons: 1, because he gets good ratings (they made money off of him. Period. It's their own damn greedy fault), and 2, because ridiculing Donald Trump fits well with the established agenda of the dems (the pubs get in on it too though it seems).
One thing that I think a lot of people don't realize is that when some people see the mainstream media doing nothing but ridiculing trump they actually get the idea that trump is "anti-establishment". They think: "Well if the powers that be do not want him to be president, maybe he is a threat to them".
People are getting more and more cynical and fed up when it comes to the election process and norm in America, and it's becoming harder and harder to sell each time. This current election is unprecedented because a part of the American public has become so blasé and lackadaisical toward the election that the only rhetoric and content capable of stirring them must be in some ways "extreme".
Trump "asking" Russia to hack the DNC for instance... Alleging that the two are any way in-cahoots is certifiably insane, and yet as an extreme point of rhetoric I see it falling out of everyone's mouth with extremely persuasive prejudice. Maybe the Kremlin do want trump to win, but why? Could it perhaps be that Russia desires a "regime change" in America so that it could possibly have it's economic sanctions eliminated?
Come on. Of course any sane Russian leader would want Trump over Hillary; Russia knows Hillary'sattitude toward Russia and global politics as a whole and they would rather roll the dice. That said, if and when Russia does release more evidence of some new Hillary scandal, will you literally blame it on trump because he once said "I hope Russia releases what they hacked"? After-all, Hillary is the victim in all this and trump is a misogynist...
But ...
But ...
Okay, so he has delivered a "short list" of 11 potential Supreme Court nominees. Currently, he can only fill in one position, as long as Obama doesn't beat him to it. What are the chances that list was made up to keep conservatives in the fold? Would he throw away his one chance to get his policies passed? Most of his promises are based on partially repealing the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional Amendments, so his biggest challenge is to get those laws past those judges who still care about constitutional rights.
Here is the offending bit:
Quoting Trump
As far as I can tell he is not necessarily describing sexual assault. "They let you do it" seems to be the crucial bit that differentiates his attitude from one of sexual assault to one of consent. I mean, if Trump was going around randomly grabbing vaginas completely unsolicited then I reckon someone would have noticed by now.
He was telling a story about how he "moved on" (tried to seduce) a married woman and failed. Maybe we could just ask her whether or not Trump sexually assaulted her. Should the police investigate this incident?
I know what she was trying to get at here: the eye of the public wields a peculiar form of scrutiny, and fear of this scrutiny can get in the way of honestly dissecting complex issues and replace it with bias and pandering to popular opinion. The supreme court refuses to allow it's proceedings to be filmed or broadcast live because they know that the public is not equipped to handle the scope and complexity of the issues they navigate, and that their emotional or otherwise irrational reactions to those goings on could and would find a way to have a causal effect upon those very or future proceedings; it creates room for bias.
I'm pretty sure she meant something along those lines, but if she was addressing a bunch of private bankers and asset managers I'm not so sure I see the merit.
I don't think I feel anything toward Trump. He should probably be pitied for his psychological disorder. I feel a bit more for his supporters, who I think are mostly being misled by a lot of social pressures. I don't even care if he wins -- I will just think, "he may not be the powerless fascist dictator America needs, but he is the one they deserve". I just hope the blow isn't that bad on all the people who thought he was going to benefit them.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
He gets good ratings for the same reason that "reality TV" shows get good ratings. The people are willing to act like idiots to get on TV, and the show does everything to emphasize the drama without losing suspense over what happens next. A lot of what happens is faked or encouraged. It is kind of a co-dependent relationship. But I hope people consider what we get at the end of the reality show. The drama never pays off.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Americans have usually been relatively disinterested in voting. I used to be an election officer, and outside presidential races, you could work on your tan while waiting for people to show up for mid-term elections. Maybe it is a sign of my age, but it seems the quality of candidates is dropping. It is as if nobody wants to run anymore. Trump is the best that Republicans could come up with. It makes me wonder if they know something that we don't know, (that we are so screwed, only crazy people and criminals will even bother running).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, it has been suggested that Russia are attracted to Trump's comment that he would recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea, but probably less for economic sanctions reasons, than the wedge it would drive between the EU and USA. Don't forget the comments Trump made about dismantlement NATO, (or making it a kind of "protection racket"). They probably don't mind the cold war negative association still in the government with anyone doing business with Russia. There is probably some other advantages, the US stock market would probably take a dive and China would dump all the US bonds they hold when their avowed enemy becomes president. Trump is probably seen by them as merely an unwitting ally.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I don't blame Trump at all. They were probably going to hack anyway. It is just an embarrassing coincidence that he said it just before it was revealed that they were doing it anyway. For all I know, he probably found out it was happening and made the statement so he could later be associated with it, (he got debriefed on state secrets before that -- so I wonder if his real, unreported, crime is announcing it and forcing the federal government to admit it was taking place -- which only brings about a possibility of treason).
This is another watershed issue: To the right are the Great Man of History lobbyists who can see in their rear view mirrors that John F. Kennedy was the font of 1960s optimism, and that Jackie Kennedy single-handedly invented the pill box hat and A line dress. To the left are the Zeitgeist lobbyists who see in their rear view mirrors all sorts of factors bubbling up and interacting.
I liked Jack Kennedy, Jacqueline, Robert, Ted, et al. They all did some good (and not so good) things. The wave of optimism began under Eisenhower, and Ike wasn't responsible for it. Millions of people coming out of the war years had gotten married, had gone to college, and had started buying homes in the suburbs. Compared to the depression of the 1930s, the 1950s were grand.
By 1960 some of the old rigidities had already started to crack and crumble. Kennedy was able to express that optimism because he was young, handsome, and upbeat. Getting assassinated burnished his image but it ended his ability to change the culture. The fairly old, earthy, and practical Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who carried through from 1963 to 1968 with the Great Society reforms like Medicare and Medicaid (and the war in Vietnam). Of course the post WWiI baby boom was optimistic. Young people usually are.
It seems whenever someone criticizes Trump, they are automatically assumed to be voting for Hillary. No, I'm not "with her", and won't vote for her either. I live on the west coast in a deeply blue state. The odds of my state going to Hillary is over 90%. In fact, like many other elections, CNN and Fox News will be calling the results before I even get to a voting booth. That means I get to vote my conscience. I won't vote for Clinton because she is openly hawkish and will probably draw the country deeper into war. It will be pretty much business as usual, with all the corruption, broken promises -- but at least the economy and infrastructure will probably survive another 4 years. Trump is the worst of the two evils only because if he actually manages to carry through with his promises, we would effectively be without a Constitution. Actually, Clinton has said a few really racist and offensive things, too, but it usually gets ignored because she is about as interesting to watch as plywood. If we are lucky, we might get a 12th Amendment election, (that's where neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes, so the house decides and every state gets one vote among the top 3 candidates).
I don't want to change anyone's opinion. If you know all the facts and still think Trump is better, go ahead and vote for him. You will have to suffer the same consequences as everyone else. If you aren't concerned about the potential fallout on you, consider the future of your party or political alignment. If you want to vote for Hillary, even if you think you must because you live in a swing state, go ahead.
I suggest that in such actions which happen fast without advance warning, "they let you do it" does not imply consent prior to the act, it implies that they do not file a complaint afterwards.
Emulate? I certainly question that assertion. Leaders have followers. But what is following? Well, there is no following in the abstract -- one has to attend to a particular situation. In a church? Sure, I'd grant some emulation (though I'd stress *some*, and also the need to attend to particulars -- but it's at least plausible). But in a representative democracy? Hardly. The idea that President Clinton's behavior somehow made "the masses" more accepting than they previously were of adultery is laughable. Especially considering the reaction -- which ranged from scandal to shrugging.
And, yes, research is a good start. It's certainly better than what has thus far been more or less a reference to "common sense" and the perception of what you take to be obvious.
You happen to have a copy of the paper? It's going to cost me $40.
Quoting Agustino
Caught red-handed, Agustino. You clearly have pilloried everything I hold dear and I am just desperately scraping to save my threadbare faith in the Marquis de Sade.
:D
Unfortunately, I know from experience, that this is not the way narcissistic personalities work. The idea that he needs anyone probably never existed in his head. He probably doesn't even recognize that other people have needs or feelings. Everything is centered around his ego. You are either with him or against him. He would have the power of executive order and vetoes with him, and probably has no scruples about using it vindictively. It isn't stupidity, it is just the way he filters the world around him to protect his ego.
In fact, I noticed whenever he mentions the support of evangelicals, it always seemed to be with a mix of contempt, (because he doesn't like their values), and happy incredulity, (that they follow him at all is just evidence of his "greatness").
Obviously the pragmatic truth lies somewhere in-between these points. Body language counts for something. Some would argue that not objecting in any way can be considered tacit consent (cases in which such arguments apply may vary) especially when a prior relationship has already established. Alcohol is a mostly unrelated but great example of how people can differ drastically about how we should perceive of and define sexual assault and consent: some say if you're drunk and you have sex with a sober person that you've been raped (this might only apply to male on female rape).
I agree with you that grabbing random women's vaginas IS sexual assault but this is not exactly what donny was describing. He was envisioning himself kissing a woman and this leading to the fateful pussy grab manuvre: "You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.". Random kissing can certainly also be described as sexual assault, but kissing someone without explicit verbal consent is an entirely different story. IMO body language is how you get consent to kiss someone. Kissing often is escalated to more... explicit... sexual acts and these escalations seldom always involve affirmative verbal consent in the course of an entire sexual encounter.
Before I forget my current rationalization for actually defending trump in this, allow me to play Trump's advocate: What Mr. Trump was describing in his 2005 banter is something that many celebrities are aware of, and that is the fact that with celebrity comes a sort of status that many people simply find attractive, some on a sexual level. Mr Trump may have very crudely articulated this, but many celebrities have had spontaneous sexual encounters with their followers, and just because a celebrity might not have asked for explicit consent in a given sexual encounter, this does not mean that consent may have in fact been there from the beginning and at every stage of escalation through body language and other such contextual indicators.
I feel dirty somehow for that :) , but I feel less dirty than I would for attacking trump on the basis of his seduction strategy of sudden snatch snatching rather than something politically substantive.
Quoting Moliere
And the idea that it had no effect on what people thought of adultery is equally laughable. It certainly influenced what some folks thought about it, and it would be quite extreme to deny that. Do you not see so many 10-12 year olds do exactly what they see Kim Kardashian and other celebrities do? The same pattern of miming behaviour that is perceived as cool, either because it comes from a well-known leader, or otherwise, exists in adults.
Look, Trump is a businessman. He got some very complex building projects completed without losing all his money - that's quite an achievement in itself - an achievement that is impossible if his narcissism was wholley unrestrained. This shows that he has intelligence, and he is able to collaborate with others to get things done. He is narcissistic, but not to the point where this would outright harm himself. You mistake pathological narcissism - which actually harms the one who is narcissistic - with Trump's narcissism, which doesn't harm him directly because he knows when he has to hold it back. He just knows how to work with others to get things done. One cannot easily flip-flop on deals without losing his reputation (and his money) in business.
(Brackets mine)
Bullshit; all it shows is that he had half-decent project managers. :-}
That's certainly what I took from the latest debate. :D
The lady who rejected Trump's advances is the redeeming aspect of his 'banter'--although I do wonder what a married woman was doing going furniture shopping with another man, especially one with Trump's reputation as a womanizer. Her husband should have set some boundaries with that type of stuff, as it could be taken once again as tacit consent - at the very least - of an interest in the man (ostensibly) spending time and money on her. I'm guessing he wasn't aware it happened, which would be a betrayal of the trust which binds the partners in a marriage. I'm sounding like a prude here but that's totally unacceptable behavior in a committed and monogamous relationship as I see it.
Anyhow I still think married woman (or man) = show some respect and move along. There are lots of unmarried people to engage in these types of 'conquests' with, and unlike Agustino I don't have much of a problem with it as long as it's done between two consenting adults. It's not ideal (in this I do agree with Agustino) but it's also not THAT bad. Ideally you find someone you connect with on much more than a physical level, but having pre-marital sexual relationships does not preclude that 'deeper' relationship from happening in a person's life somewhere down the line once they meet the right one for them. I like to think I speak from experience on the matter.
No problem; not that big of a deal. It's commonplace for extreme narcissism to cause people to temper the expression of it; so what? :-d
That's just factually incorrect. The only scientific poll (i.e. based on a random sampling etc) that I've seen gave the debate to Clinton.
"CNN's poll found that by 57-34%, a majority of voters watching them thought she got the best of him."
Simply attacking someone doesn't win a debate. You have to come across as at least somewhat likeable. Trump played to his base, who love everything he does anyway, but made no inroads with any other demographics. Not a winning strategy.
Quoting Agustino
No, but I have no more pity for him than I will have for Trump when he loses.
I told you my analysis, which is supported by many other people, who also think that Trump won the debate. I have no bias in this - I freely admitted Trump lost the first one. But this time, when Clinton couldn't answer even a single issue that Trump brought up - this was shameful for her.
I wonder if most people are even aware of their biases and the blatant double standards they hold. Myself included! It's as if the ego gets in the way of truth, or at least clearer perception. Apologies for stating this most obvious point.
It wouldn't matter anyway; neither your opinion nor mine alone doth a debate win make, and the general public by a large margin gave it to Clinton. The consensus among the media as a whole seems to be that Trump did better than last time (he had more energy and a few good lines) but still lost. I was working, so I can't give much of an informed opinion except to say that she seemed rather robotic and lifeless and he overly aggressive and uninformed. Neither of them have much charisma or are very likeable but she has a better grasp on the issues and seems better at obscuring the less pleasant aspects of her persona, while he's better at firing people up with off-the-cuff one-liners.
Yes, Hillary lied about her emails and destroyed evidence and then was never prosecuted when others are prosecuted for doing less. She also used character assassination to silence her husbands accusers of sexual harassment and takes money from foreign governments who don't allow their women to drive or go to school. And most Hillary supporters apparently think that's normal behavior which speaks volumes about their values or lack thereof. she's effectively highlighting the hypocrisy of the so-called social liberals. That rights for women and a fair justice system have never been the driving force for the majority of this group is not something that surprises me.
You can highlight Clinton's faults all you want and you won't get any arguments from me. I'm not one of her supporters.
I have no bias in saying who won the debate(s) not in who I'd want to win the election.
Quoting Erik
Of course it does. As we all have something to gain or lose from this. The social conservative agenda has a lot to lose if Clinton or the liberal progressives win this election. Do you not think so?
U.S. politics sure is weird.
There's a difference between an argument and a citation.
What's the argument?
I mean, heck. I can shoot a search on google to find something that vaguely seems to support what I'm saying any day of the week. But, at the end of the day, if I don't have an argument then I'm just appealing to authority.
Are adults the same as 10-12 year olds? No.
Is Bill Clinton the same as a pop celebrity? Also no.
Surely you're not positing that some adults think Bill Clinton is cool and his cool-factor influenced them to think that adultery might be OK.
Although, hey, maybe you are. Let's just say exactly that.
Where are these adults who mime the coolness of Bill Clinton and become swayed and tempted to commit adultery because of them trying to mime that hip papa?
[quote=Baden]No, but I have no more pity for him than I will have for Trump when he loses.[/quote]
Baden, are you of the mindset that words spoken are equal to actions taken? Mr. Clinton not only disrespected the highest office of my country but he allowed his wife Hillary, to go on national media and say that the women accusing Bill Clinton are a part of some right wing conspiracy.
Gosh, golly gee, I wonder if Hillary would feel the same, if it was Chelsea that was being portrayed not as a victim but rather as a master manipulator. :s
So.. Tiff. Reality check. You know as well as I do what kind of man Trump is. You know as well as I do that trying to make this about Bill Clinton is a diversion.
Are there any decent conservative men? Absolutely. Prime example: David Brooks. Months ago he publicly stated that he couldn't vote for Trump because of matter of decency.
As long as Hillary is sending out Bill to campaign for her, then "diversion" or not, it makes his prior behavior or lack of judgement, while occupying the same office, fair game.
Decency is another term for moral fortitude, to which I suggest that NO one in this race has an ounce of.
It depends on the words, and the actions, and the actions the words describe.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
He's done far far worse things than that (in terms of foreign policy in particular).
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I don't defend any of the reprehensible things the Clintons have done, Tiff. But none of them redeems Trump in any way.
Such a shame.
The game that narcissists play is to make themselves look great on the surface. If you dig past the surface and uncover failures and harm, they are quick to shift blame onto others. They don't need to restrain themselves up front, they thrive off the initial attention and admiration. It is only when you get into personal relationships that all the flaws come out. Then you are stuck -- it is either "my way or the highway". You either give into their demands or they will destroy you. It isn't too hard to tell if they are pathological up front. Do they blow up at the slightest negative comment and start coming out with threats of physical violence or legal threats? Does their comments of past failures and rivalries border on conspiracy theory? They manage to get through life because they are skilled at appealing to the narcissism in others.
Sure, he will play nice with conservatives, evangelicals and even white supremacists as long as they support him, while barely containing his brutal personal attacks on everyone else. Once the paper is signed, though, you have to keep playing the game or get run over. There have been dozens of reports from people that actually worked with Trump. He is obsessive, micro-managing every detail, and doesn't give an inch on anything. Nobody will be able to control him, not conservatives or Republicans. They have basically lost this election already.
But don't take my opinion. What about the Koch brothers? They usually spend billions on their conservative candidate. They have decided to sit this election out because they don't believe Trump or Clinton is going to do what they want -- and have instead focused on house and senate races. They join a long list of billionaires who won't have anything to do with Trump, even his friends.
Quoting Mongrel
It doesn't matter if it's a diversion - it's the truth. Who cares why Trump is doing it? It's all true. That's what really matters. Not that Trump is trying to divert attention from the comments that he's made - that is true - but irrelevant to the discussion we have about Bill.
What is this, some quotes from Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power and other silly writings like that? Machiavelli's Prince? These things have no place in this world.
Quoting swstephe
I so disagree with this. If you have that attitude in business you won't survive much - you'll be gone in no time. First, you will easily find people who worship you on the surface so they can dig you. If you're a narcissist, you're a weak target for such folk - especially, I should say, women who seek to seduce you and later use this against you. Second, you will alienate people, and you will develop a reputation for alienating people - soon very few are going to want to work with you, and some of those who do want to work with you will actually want to hurt you rather than help you. The big secret is that Trump doesn't blow up at the slightest negative comment, nor does he come up with threats. I've watched him. When he's talking with someone who is in a superior position to him, or someone whom he needs, he's very respectful, and he always bows down - he's almost servile. That's how he is when he talks with bankers for example. Now - he does create this persona of greatness and superiority with folks whom he has control over - this explosive, and uncontrollable persona. But this is only helpful to him - because when he actually talks with a banker, and he is servile, it gives off the impression "Oh this guy is really much nicer than I thought he is. He must be quite a nice man afterall!"
Now there's a very big difference between this that I described above and a narcissist. This is just someone who is adept at using others, and very pragmatic. Has very little heart, and probably thinks that he is a special human being. But there is NOTHING clinically wrong with them. From a medical point of view, they're highly capable of functioning in society. The narcissist on the other hand is self-obsessed in a pathological sense - you find him in the doctor's office - he's unable to form relationships, has few friends/aquaintances, and in other words behaves in the same self-centered way with everyone - a way which alienates him from others. Trump isn't a narcissist - he's entirely rational. He behaves as he does because this is what it takes to win. He doesn't behave in such a way because he is compelled to, and can't control it. He's totally in control of it.
It's like running the mafia - the mafia boss isn't someone lacking any or all moral qualities and who is a narcissist. He's a very rational person, who understands the needs of others, and who is capable to build a community around himself - who is capable to extract loyalty out of others. The only difference is that his sense of morality is built around an "us vs them" mentality - highly focused on in-group loyalty, and in-group benefits to the negligence of anyone else.
Trump threatens to sue those he has control over - Rosie O'Donnell - she's a nobody to him. Of course he makes a big show and threatens to sue her. It teaches other similar people to be careful with him - not necessarily because he can do anything to them, but simply because they don't want to go through all the fuss with him. Secondly, all his life he has guarded the idea that he is rich, and has always inflated his wealth. Why? Because others want to work with rich people - others respect rich people much more. And respect is one of the necessary things in order to be able to make money and make others work for you. If you want to start your own shoe making business who's gonna want to work for you? Assuming you have little money, and no experience in such a business nobody! You're not going to have people to put to work. But on the other hand, if they think you're a big designer, they will all rush to work with you, even for free. If your name is Elon Musk, investors will easily give you billions to start your spaceship program - because your name is big. Doesn't matter how crazy your idea is - just your name.
Quoting swstephe
Trump is a snake. But because he is a snake, he is very rational and he is controllable. I know for certain that he cannot betray the social conservatives without ruining his presidency, probably even risking losing his seat due to Congress. He will satisfy social conservative agendas so long as he is permitted to satisfy his own agenda - which in this case is an economical one. Trump is a man who makes compromises - he's a man who is rational - you can strike a deal with him, even if he doesn't agree with you. That's very good - many people aren't like that. Hillary on abortion for example - that's my way or the highway. Furthermore Trump wants to be known as great - people who want to be known as great aren't narcissists - because it takes a great deal more than self-love to be known as great. You have to actually do something good - at least for some people - to be known as great. Alexander the Great for example - not a narcissist - if he had been one, he wouldn't have managed to do anything.
Quoting swstephe
The Koch brothers have primarily ECONOMIC interests, not social conservative ones.
In this line of thought - Bill Clinton is much more of a narcissist, because he's actually engaged in a lot of non-rational activities which have sabotaged him and his family - such as rape. Why did he need to rape anyone? He was already getting quite a lot of women willingly.
Quoting swstephe
This is just nonsensical drivel - they say that about everyone. The same was said about Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates for example. But it's just not true. If someone is obsessive and micro-managing every little detail (like me quite frequently) - they're very slow. They don't do a lot of things. They're always stuck on some small thing. They're not working on the big picture. Furthermore, they risk annoying people to the extent that they stop working for them - or if they keep working for them, they become very uninterested and produce low quality work. You see Steve Jobs bully employees once he's rich and powerful. Why? Because for people to be willing to work for you and to do what you want (along general lines, because at micro-level they still need freedom, simply because you yourself will lack the expertise) they have to either be given sufficient freedom and status in the company, OR they have to think that you are great, a different sort of human being. The bullying helps prove that. But Steve Jobs didn't get there by bullying people - quite the contrary, he got there by being servile, and like Trump, a snake. He sold the first computer that Wozniack built and gave him only one tenth of the money - he lied about the selling price. Clearly he didn't go around being like "Oh Woz, now you have to do X, I don't care what the fuck you think about it, just do it because I know better" - if he had done that, he would have been a loser. Instead he was like "Oh yeah Woz, this what you're doing is truly great! Maybe you should add XYZ, I was looking at it before, I think it would look great! What do you think?". So he clearly wasn't busy micro-managing anything - he was busy keeping people happy, and looking at the big picture, what has to be done in order to get an advantage. So he was quite the opposite from obsessive and micro-managing. He became that much more once he became powerful simply because he had to in order to get folk to work for him.
No, that drivel is off the top of my head from personal experience dealing with narcissists, (for some reason, I attract narcissists like a magnet).
Quoting Agustino
Okay, I think I see the problem here. You seem to think a bunch of politicians in congress and the house are going to be able to get their way with Mr. "Art of the Deal", while I think he is a really smart negotiator who is going to run rings around politicians. I don't have many doubts that if Trump gets elected, he would repeatedly risk impeachment or government shutdowns for his agenda -- which is probably personal, (he even said he doesn't deal for money because he is already rich, he does it just to win).
Quoting Agustino
Like I said, I got my information about narcissistic personalities from experience. I live near Silicon Valley. I worked in Larry Ellison's company for 15 years, even his biography retold a popular joke the difference between God and Larry Ellison. Yes, he micromanaged everything. I remember when he personally rejected the look of the icons for our software package because they were to "cartoony". His exploits were legendary. I was there when he drove 150 mph through residential areas, being chased by police, locked the windows and called his lawyers down from his building before even stepping out of this custom Maserati. Also when he got into a fight with the San Jose Airport over the right to land his personal Mig-20, (he used to buzz our buildings). I saw him in person twice that whole time, but both times he was surrounded by all his keepers and followers. He rose to become the second richest man in the world, but mostly through dirty tricks and surrounding himself by people who were either yes-men or were terrified of him. But he burned himself a few times, the short marriage and expensive divorce, and getting caught when salespeople manipulated the books at his command.
I never met Steve Jobs, Larry's next door neighbor, but had met a few people who worked on the original Mac. They told me they had to hide a Japanese engineer in the closet whenever he came around so he didn't find out that they went against him and were installing a 3 1/2" floppy instead of the more popular 5 1/4" floppy. A few friends went off to work on the NeXT computer. He was so obsessed over every little detail, he even oversaw the placement of the sprinklers in the landscaping. I don't watch those movies or read those books because I suspect they are either going to be overly positive or critical. Also, he seemed to have reformed quite a bit after he came back to Apple ... These days, I really wish someone would point out, in one of those debates, that Steve Jobs was a Syrian refugee. He was also the kind of guy that required fierce loyalty, (the phrase Apple employees use "bleed 5-color blood"), or at least fearful compliance.
I don't know anything first hand about Bill Gates, (that's in Washington state), but I'm supposed to go up and visit Jeff Bezos territory next week. I've heard he made micromanagement one of his "10 rules for leaders". His company is very competitive and the average length of employment is only 2 years.
Customers stick with you if they come to the expectation that you are the only real choice, (not unlike Trump and Hillary). Your outrageous aggressiveness attracts people looking for strength. Your employees don't leave because despite the abuse, the pay is good and the job experience will carry you to better jobs. People partner with them for their own credentials.
So it is possible to be somewhat successful in business while being a micromanaging jerk. Sometimes it is an advantage. There are stories that Trump's obsession over the railing on balconies at one construction uncovered a dangerous flaw. But that micromanagement can also lead to disaster, like Trump Air, which he micromanaged into the ground.
Okay, I understand your point.
Quoting swstephe
This seems to be already after he became rich and powerful. I doubt he got in that position this way. As I said, once people become rich and powerful, what it takes to keep succeeding is different than what gets you there in the first place. I have a family friend who is now a very rich real estate developer in my country. He's very arrogant now, does very little work, and always disciplines his employees and checks over everything. But he didn't get there doing any of this. He became like this once he was already big. He started out by selling flowers in the street - and he used to be very servile with everyone, even his first employees, many of whom still work with him and he treats them differently from anyone else (probably because they stuck with him for so long).
As you say, you met with him only a few times. His company was already quite big, I must assume, by this point.
Quoting swstephe
That's not really micromanagement - micromanagement would be to tell you how to draw it / code it. This is really attention to detail - but not actually getting involved in your job. It's still up to you how to get it done, he simply doesn't like the way you've done it.
You have managed to convince yourself that you know what Trump will do if elected. I'm not convinced; if anything I think swstephe's analysis is probably closer to the mark than yours. Wait and see; he probably won't be elected in any case. Clinton's not much better either; what a low point has been reached in politics! I think the increasingly superficial nature of politics is a general trend worldwide; but it's writ large on the American stage.
But Trump is an unmitigated disaster, a two-bit huckster, carpet-bagger, no-nothing loudmouth, an empty suit with his hands up skirts and in tills. The fact that he has gotten thus far is an indictment of American society.
More like an indictment of the current state of the Republican Party, which is hardly all of American society. There were somewhat better Republican candidates, though none of them were A+, and Trump accumulated more national delegate votes than the other candidates, and that settled it.
The vitriol directed at Hillary Clinton is misogynism and more. Republicans hate Obama and Hillary Clinton with about equal passion, it seems like. She has become the symbol for all the perceived insults to American prestige in places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc. The super hawks had their feathers badly ruffled by the Iran agreement on nuclear weapons. The hawks probably wanted an attack on Iran's bomb-hardened labs and were disappointed The missing emails smell like subterfuge -- and probably were.
Bernie Sanders might have been a more effective candidate, a better person, and a greater challenge to Trump. Alas, vote counts determined the outcome in the Democratic Party too. Sanders came close, but close doesn't count.
We have a winner-take-all system; a proportional system might be better. Far off fat chance that will happen.
You know, people criticize America (Americans among the critics) for a low voter turnout. In some ways, low voter turn out is not all bad. The negative spin is that non-voters don't care, are too lazy, are too stupid, etc. I don't believe it. A positive spin is that a large number of the nonvoters have rejected the political system of electing candidates who don't represent the rank and file of the people. Trump is not a friend of the common man, and neither is Hillary Clinton. Neither was George Bush; in some ways, Bill Clinton wasn't either; neither was Bush I and his wretched predecessor, Ronald Reagan. And so on. Go back before... 1952 say, and there were a lot more decisions made in "smoke filled rooms" by power brokers.
What's true is that he boasted about sexually assaulting women. He boasted about doing it himself. You can continue to try to blame that on Hollywood, the media, and progressives etc. but no one here is going to take you seriously; and the fact that you continue to try to excuse him while complaining about how the media excuses the Clintons highlights again the hypocrisy that you are so steeped in.
Lol, well Wayne Gretzky, the greatest athlete that ever lived comes from Edmonton! Got that west edmonton mall (which I've driven right by like five thousand times but never been into, my sister is bugging me to take her sometime.).
I get to brag brah, it's thanksgiving, loophole.
They ought not vote at all, then.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The same could be said of Hillary.
Yet you use the same selective outrage that most liberals are known for. You attack Trump and his supporters over something Trump said as opposed to what Hillary did. Last I checked, everyone had the right to free speech, and Trump exercised his rights. Hillary, on the other hand, engaged in criminal behavior. Which is worse? Obviously what Clinton did yet you aren't consistent in holding both accountable. You are only interested in holding one accountable - the one that didn't do the worse thing - a criminal act. Your bias is obvious.
If using "locker room talk" is a disqualification for being President, then everyone is disqualified as everyone has engaged in it and laughed at it at some point in their life.
It comes down to who would you want as a friend - someone who is brutally honest and may offend you with what they say, but you know that they are just being honest, or the one that will smile and shake your hand yet lie to your face and tell you what you want to hear?
This is the last time I am going to explain that I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter, that I don't like her in the slightest, and I would never vote for her. Am I expressing myself in simple enough terms? But this discussion is about Trump. It's called "Latest Trump Is No Worse Than Earlier Trump". Hillary Clinton is not the topic here. If you want to start a new discussion about her, go ahead. I've criticized her very heavily in other discussions and I'm likely to do so again..
Quoting Harry Hindu
Trump, as a disgusting old lech, boasted about sexually assaulting younger women. Sexual assault is criminal behaviour. It was not just talk. It was talk about his actions. And to dismiss it as just talk is an egregious insult to every victim of this crime. So, this insipid parroting of the idea that it's just words, which are not as bad as actions, is not going to fly anywhere outside moronic media environments like Breitbart and Fox News. And nothing Hillary Clinton has done mitigates its seriousness.
But this is the whole conservative argument: "They said my friend is naughty but their friend is naughtier!" It's almost beyond belief that we have to listen to this childish rubbish on a philosophy forum.
[quote=Baden]
Hillary doesn't get a pass on being a liar, corporate shill and lover of war criminals because she's a woman. Arguably, her husband is worse (in my view at least) but he's not running for office this time.[/quote]
Now, back to Trump.
Why would we attack Trump and his supporters over something Hillary did?
Quoting Harry Hindu
You have that right up until you've slandered someone. It's remarkable that Trump's entire campaign has run on denying facts and truths, in the hope that if Trump denies what is reality, enough stupid people will actually grow to think he's right because they're too lazy and dumb to inform themselves. Alas, this strategy seems to have worked quite well...
Quoting Harry Hindu
There's a great difference between merely talking about sex, and actually discussing how you sexually assault, and in some cases rape, another person. I'm sorry, and perhaps I'm a solitary exception to your rule, but I've never joked about sexually assaulting or raping someone. If you have, and in fact think that everyone else does, then I think this tells me and others quite a bit about your own character, in addition to Trump's. To be honest, it's rather revolting to see how many people use the, "but I do it, too!" card as some perceived defense for reprehensible behavior and attitudes. No, Trump is disgusting, and so are any who defend him.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You're kidding, surely? If I had to vote based on which candidate I thought could be my friend, I'd never vote. Politicians are built on secrecy and deception, even those of good character, so the idea that I'd ever be able to trust their word as a friend is...perplexing.
There's an insightful comment today from David Brooks saying that Trump has no friends, because he has a narcissistic personality disorder which prevents any kind of real relationships with people: 'alexithymia':
Brooks goes on to say:
David Brooks, NY Times, Donald Trump's Sad, Lonely Life.
Oh give me a break lol. Trump is very adequate at being emotionally aware. He does those things on purpose. Someone with no emotional awareness isn't a good manipulator as Trump is. He wouldn't be a good deal maker.
Do you know what kind of people's skills someone working in construction needs? Construction projects are so complicated, you have to deal with varying people (from architects, to managers, to bankers, to suppliers, to engineers, to workers, to government officials etc. etc.), all with different kinds of personalities - some who you need to be a bully with, others you need to be servile with, and so forth. If you think Trump is emotionally incompetent, then probably all you've seen of him is his public appearance. He's clearly very smart emotionally - this doesn't mean he's a nice person - he's not. But he does understand how people feel and how to use that. He knows when to be a nice guy - for example when he speaks with people he needs and people on whom he depends. And he knows when to be a bully - in public, and when he deals with those he has control over.
If he really was incompetent he would have lost all his wealth. Forget performing well - to be involved in the construction industry and survive - that alone is a big achievement.
Also, as I mentioned before - people before they become rich are different from people after they become rich - two different sorts of skill sets are needed. When you're a nobody you can't afford to bully everyone - you need others. When you're a big name, others need you.
Why is it perplexing? When you're rich and powerful you have to be a bully to keep going - it's the most effective way to move forward, since others need you, and your need of any particular individual is much smaller. The fact that you're a bully merely exacerbates their need for you, which makes them work harder to please you. But if you're a nobody and you're a bully - people isolate you. They don't need you that much - they can do without you. But if you're rich, you are a big opportunity for them. Most people just want jobs which are high-paying and where they don't have to work that much. But to get those jobs, they must first get a reputation. If they claim they worked for you and were very succesful - a lot of doors will open up for them. That's why many folks become mean and arrogant once they become rich. It's a way to control your workers - fear. Plus you see all the common folk abusing you as well - you see your key employees leaving to join a bigger company. You see people being leeches. So you get sick and tired of this - you crack the whip on them - you treat them as expendables as well, because you know that if you don't, sooner or later they themselves will betray you and screw you up.
How much Trump had to do with the design, don't know. I would be very surprised if he had much at all to do with it. The tastes of the people who buy architect's services is often very at odds with the much more refined tastes of the designer. I doubt if most rich people could come up with a good building design if their lives depended on it. It isn't that they are untalented, it's just that most of them have pedestrian, bourgeois sensibilities suitable for the business world--that's how they got rich (if they didn't inherit it) and that's why they hire inspired architects.
Yes, it's a phallic object. It's taller than it's wide. Virtually all tall buildings are phallic. They can't help it. The pentagon isn't phallic. Buckingham Palace isn't phallic. Tiananmen Square isn't phallic.
I watched a documentary on Henry Ford recently - he too had his faults but he was also a genuine visionary, he basically invented modern mass-production (actually based on a method he observed in abattoirs, I learned). There was talk above about Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison earlier in this thread - they too have perceived flaws but also genuine ability (especially Jobs, who is really like a modern-day Ford and arguably the most successful businessman of modern times.)
But I just don't see anything whatever about Donald Trump which indicates anything other than mediocrity.
Speak for yourself, lecher.
So then to be consistent, you must also say the same thing about Hillary. To rail against Trump for being dishonest and not say the same thing about Hillary is to be intellectually dishonest.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Again, Hillary and her husband are no different. Bill has assaulted women and Hillary has attacked his accusers. The reason Bill and Hillary stay married isn't simply because of power. It's because of immunity. A husband and wife can't testify against each other. Trump's "victims" never came forward. Bill's have. Trump's groping of willing women never threatened our national security like Hillary's e-mail server. The selective outrage by the left and the inability to prioritize their outrage based on the act is clear evidence that the left is the side made mostly of sheep.
Hillary has even defended a child rapist - accusing the 12-year old victim of encouraging the attack on her and laughing at her clients ability to pass a lie detector test saying that her faith in lie detector test is diminished because she knew he was guilty. Even the DNA said so, but she got him off after "time served" while the girl was beaten within an inch of her life and can't have any children.
To talk about Trump and ignore deplorable acts of Hillary is hypocritical. If both candidates have the same problems then there is no point in bringing up those issues as they cancel each other out. What is the point in talking about qualities and views of candidates that are the same? Shouldn't we be spending our time talking about their differences? If you bring it up and talk about it like you aren't guilty of the same thing - like Hillary and her supporters do - then there is no better term for you than, "hypocrite".
But that the thing: Context. In order to talk objectively about Trump's behavior, you'd have to take into account other people's behavior that are also running for President. To talk about one without talking about the other doing the same (or worse), is to cause confusion and isn't being objective.
Actually, that's not true. He has been involved in 3500 lawsuits to date. Even if he becomes president, he will still have to deal with accusations of raping a 13-year-old girl in 1994 with Jeffery Epstein, all the accusations of outright fraud from Trump University, and on and on. That doesn't include all the election laws he violated during this campaign funneling money between his companies and campaign donations, unlicensed non-profit organization, requesting donations from foreign officials and even state laws, like talking to voters waiting in line in Wisconsin.
The very idea that this "pussygate" scandal is what outrages people makes me think the whole thing is orchestrated to keep Trump running for some ulterior purpose. I can easily imagine Hillary going over the polling numbers, wondering how she can get elected despite being so universally unlikable -- then comes up with the genius idea of forcing people to vote for her by helping the "greater evil" get in place. I know many liberals who had to take back their "never vote for Hillary" stance solely because the threat of Trump's claims of how he is going to gut the constitution is a greater threat.
I thought liberals were all about "screw the constitution" :P
Quoting Harry Hindu
The thread is about Trump, though...:-|
And if you'd like consistency, shouldn't you come back and address your wildly insulting declaration that every male talks sexual assault like it's a normality?
C'mon, don't cherry pick!
Except that the assertion that 'Hillary is dishonest' is dishonest. 'Lying Hillary' is a lie. Clinton has been hauled in front of numerous senate select commitees, often comprising Republican senators who want to destroy her career, but they haven't been able to bring any kind of charge against her. They've been trying to make things stick for over a decade, but nothing does. And why not? Because there's nothing there.
Last week the big scandal about Clinton, was a leaked document that showed that she told a group of bankers that the financial services industry would be best placed to understand financial reform. Shock! Horror! How can she get away with it??
Whereas, her opponent has been caught lying so often that it is pointless talking about it. He has thousands of lawsuits against him, has gamed the financial system, routinely cheats his employees and molests women, and has behaved appallingly throughout his public career.
Even Obama is worried about the mess that his opponents have gotten themselves into, he understands that a two-party system needs two functioning parties, not one party against a rabble. (But then, I think a great number of basically decent GOP folks are weeping bitter tears over this situation too.)
'Disliking Hillary Clinton' is no rationale for turning a blind eye to what is happening.
Second, Trump is a moron and a real danger to the USA. The idea that has been floated by Agustino to shake up the system by selecting Trump.
Let me try to put that in an analogy. You have a house and you're looking to reconstruct it because it has wood rot and peeling paint. You get to choose a pet and the one option is an old mean cat and the other is a faeces flinging chimpanzee with the temperament of a horny dog.
The cat will occasionally drag in a dead rat and rake you if you don't look out but most days not much of a nuisance and life goes on.
The chimp though flings his shit around everyday, screams incessantly, (sexually) assaults visitors and the few words he knows are "pussygrabber" and "Mexican rapist". Pretty soon your friends stop visiting.
Neither will fix your house but you'll have a shit load more work cut out for you after the chimp is gone.
Point being, no one person is going to fix your system, you'll have to do it yourselves and you're going to need help. From liberals and republicans and independents alike. Alienating most of them by singlemindedly trying to push your own agenda won't work and makes you an egoistic bastard to boot (not a social conservative value). Being willing to make things worse, for which a Republican president and its party will be blamed, will not instill trust with non-Republicans. Meaning you're setting yourself up to have no negotiation power in deciding how the system could change whatsoever after Trump would leave.
Don't vote or vote anything but Trump.
Machiavelli.
Exactly, someone like Trump will have appalling taste. I expect that his brief for the architect was I want something striking and taller than everything around it, to look bigger and better. That would have been his entire input, well apart from focussing on the Super kingsize bed and gold taps in his penthouse.
It's alright, because he's going to leave all the good bits, like that lovely bit which is used to justify a system in which citizens can go around shooting one another.
Wow. No it isn't. They're both big liars, although, at least in this campaign, there is evidence which suggests that Trump is the bigger liar. If I find that article, which I read a while back, I'll post a link. In the mean time, there has been plenty of fact checking, and it would be incredibly naive to put the disparity between what Clinton has said on the one hand, and the facts on the other, wholly down to innocent mistakes.
Please stop deferring to your imagination and refer to what I actually said. There is a big difference between credible fact checkers and internet conspiracy theories.
Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter
Hillary Clinton's file
Only 24% true and 49% between half-true and pants on fire. They're both liars. It's a matter of who is the bigger liar - which is clearly Trump.
But that the alternative is worse doesn't redeem her, so why shouldn't - or why wouldn't - people express hostility towards her? Some of it, I believe, is justified - irrespective of Trump and his supporters. So I am not so nonplussed.
Yep. I think that Sanders would've been the better remedy, but I would vote for Clinton if I could.
8-)
'A decade ago, Clinton chronicled her quest—both deeply personal and, in the truest sense, public—to help make our society into the kind of village that enables children to become smart, able, resilient adults.
For more than thirty-five years, Clinton has made children her passion and her cause. Her long experience—not only through her roles as mother, daughter, sister, and wife but also as advocate, legal expert, and public servant—has strengthened her conviction that how children develop and what they need to succeed are inextricably entwined with the society in which they live and how well it sustains and supports its families and individuals. In other words, it takes a village to raise a child.
In her new Introduction, Clinton reflects on how our village has changed over the last decade—from the impact of the Internet to new research in early child development and education. She discusses issues of increasing concern—security, the environment, the national debt—and looks at where we have made progress and where there is still work to be done.
It Takes a Village has become a classic. This edition makes it abundantly clear that the choices we make today about how we raise our children and how we support families will determine how our nation will face the challenges of this century.'
And peculiar given that Amendments are a thing.
'Some time ago, Trump chronicled his quest—both deeply personal and, in the truest sense, public—to help make our society into the kind of fortress that encourages children within the fortress to become ignorant, xenophobic, narrow-minded adults.
For more than thirty-five years, Trump has made scaremongering his passion and his cause. His long experience—not only through his role as a rich, greedy, tax-dodger, but also as a rich, greedy, television star—has strengthened his conviction that how children develop and what they need to succeed are inextricably entwined with a society in which there are no rapists or terrorists. In other words, it takes a wall to raise children without the fear of Mexicans or foreign Muslims.
In his new Introduction, Trump deflects on how our would-be-fortress has changed over the last decade—from the rise of xenophobia to the increase in hate crime. He stirs up issues of increasing concern—the lack of a wall, the lack of a wall paid for by Mexicans, and pussy grabbing—and looks at where we have made progress, in order to reverse it; and where there is still work to be done, so as to avoid it.
[U]It Takes a Wall[/u] has become a classic. This edition makes it abundantly clear that the choices we make today about how we raise our children and how we support families are not as important as building a wall.
Yet Trump has been a friend with Bill Clinton and the Clintons and is part of the elite that runs the US.
And then there are the SHOCKING sex scandals that Trump has to face now. With these kinds of scandals Americans have a true love-hate relationship. They hate them, but seem not to get enough of them. Well, if anyone has listened to Trump, his taped behaviour shouldn't come as a surprise. Better yet, there's even one sex scandal brewing with both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are linked to which, well, tells it all. Oddly enough not much coverage of that one. The most laughable things is when some Americans condemn one of the womanizers (Bill or Donald), yet defend the other.
Yet my favorite still is the video where Donald, the GOP presidential candidate, makes an unwellcome approach (read sexual harassment) on Rudy Guliani (a GOP politician that ran for president) in drag, and Rudy says in the end "Donald, I thought you were a gentleman!"
The Irony of the above video for me is just unbelievable as one of the things why Rudy Guliani flopped was his drag performances. And Trump... is just Trump, and real world actions like that are likely to be the final nail in the coffin of his Presidential aspirations, where everything else (collectively far more dangerous) didn't matter. And that the two above are President hopefulls come from the Republican party. Yep, there's no business like showbusiness. (Perhaps US politics?)
Yes it's an industrial hangover in the marina of my local town, Ipswich. The development of the marina was stopped in its tracks in 2008, a nod to the disgraceful behaviour of investment bankers.
You should see the building next door, an even better metaphor for the vacuous nature of Trump.
It's known as the skeleton, or wine rack tower.
It's interesting to me, by the way, that as far as my memory serves, this is the first time a candidate is doing well in the US with a depressing message "the USA is doing terrible (Mexicans), it's going down the drain (terrorists) and I'll save you (with my super-wheelin'an'dealin' skills)". I'm used to "USA is the greatest country in the world and if you vote for me we'll tackle this and that problem".
It's very weird hearing such pessimism becoming mainstream in the USA. Sounds to me USA citizens to a large extent no longer believe in themselves or their fellow countrymen.
That video, despite the fact that you're annoyed, made an important point. It wasn't discussing Carson's views on homosexuality or anything of that sort. So bringing that up is simply a red herring. The fact of the matter is that Carson is right - liberals always trick social conservatives not to show up to vote, and therefore end up with the situation that always favours them.
Quoting Benkei
That's how it should be - the world has many problems, we should be aware what those problems are, instead of self-deluded, like Obama, and think that everything is great when it actually isn't.
How will Trump "end illegal immigration"? Yes, he has perhaps said he will do so, but he's offered no remotely plausible plan for doing so (even his ridiculous Mexico-financed wall, should it be built, would not stop illegal immigration). Surely you're not that naive?
It turns out that that sex and the condoning of vague sexual aggression is the worst thing that could possibly happen... I mean, I guess you can condone fisticuffs between your followers and your opponent's followers, brag about being able to randomly shoot someone in the head and not lose any political support, advocate carpet bombing whole cities, murdering the families of suspected terrorists, marking or banishing people based on religion, and restricting the free press, and it doesn't really bother anyone...
Just a little bit of sex related scandal though, and uh oh, we got us a pussy grabber folks; a grabber of pussies. He just randomly grabs pussies! Who'da'thunk it? Yep. This all checks out. Nothing to see here folks, nothing at all. Go home everyone, forget about it. There's absolutely nothing interesting to see here whatsoever. *Nods several times and bows. Exit's stage:left*
Hillary Hillary Bo Billary -
Banana Fana So Sillary -
She Shy Sho Shillery!
Hillary!
I don't know, there is still a glimmer of a chance. First, the public have mass attention-deficit disorder, people have mostly forgotten much bigger scandals that have also come out of Trump's mouth. Despite media reporting on this scandal 24-hours a day, some of the Republicans that abandoned Trump are coming back to him. Many Evangelical leaders, who have the ears of many, refuse to abandon him. On the other side, a lot on the left are saying the same thing, that Trump has no chance of winning, so now they aren't forced to vote for Hillary, so they could be thinking of voting 3rd party or write-in candidate, (apparently Vermont has a good chance of going to a write-in Bernie challenge). The state of Maine has been held up as how several left-leaning candidates spoiled their governor elections so they ended up with a huge racist, bigoted governor that most people want to get rid.
What is a bit more worrying is the occasional mentions of an attempt at voter suppression or even an outright revolt. Even showing up at voting boots wearing something like red shirts or Trump t-shirts is illegal in many states. There was the plot to blow up a mosque and kill the mostly-Somali worshippers on November 9th, (why does the media refuse to use the words "white nationalist radical"?).
Anyway, a Hillary presidency would probably be a "lame duck" presidency for the first few years. It looks like Republicans will dominate both houses and they will most likely try all the same stunts as before to prevent her from doing anything.
Did trump actually confess that he is a sexual predator? Or are you referring to the pussy grab remarks?
The two are the same thing.
I'll quote the letter published by the New York Times in response to Donal Trumps lawyers accusing them of libel after publishing claims that he sexually assaulted two women: "Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms [the girls were aged between 15 and 19]. He acquiesced to a radio host's request to discuss Mr. Trump's own daughter as a "piece of ass." Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself. We publish newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern. If Mr. Trump disagrees... we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight."
That about sums it up I think.
But if that wasn't enough, he also said about a 10 year old girl that he "will be dating her in 10 years". Donald Trump is literally looking at 10 year old girls and thinking he can't wait to shag them when they're legal.
He also said if he were not married, and not her father, that he would date his daughter. What the fuck is that about?
He also has said he kisses her "with every chance [he] gets".
Howard Stern, on his show said to him: "You know about sexual predators, right?" A woman off-screen interjects, "you are one!" Trumps response was to shrug his shoulders, laugh, and mouth the words "it's true".
There is also the accusation that he made inappropriate advances towards a reporter; "look at her, look at her words, you tell me what you think. I don't think so". His defense is that he didn't sexually assault this woman because she's not attractive enough for him to sexually assault.
And these are just the things he has said. But of course, Trumps defense is tantamount to "how dare you claim I did the things I claimed I did!"
There are also specific court claims made by two women that he has sexually assaulted them.
He will also face child rape charges in court.
And to top it off, we now have video and audio evidence of Trump saying you can get away with grabbing women by the pussy if you're rich and famous. We're seeing this movie all the more frequently with historic sex crimes committed by rich and powerful people.
One of the most disgusting parts of that video, beside the most obvious part, is how, after having this gross conversation behind closed doors, they step off the bus into public and his friend Billy Bush tells the woman who greets them to hug Trump. It should send a shiver down the spine of any decent person.
I understand that people are (legally) innocent until proven guilty, but the larger picture is becoming pretty clear. Anyone who defends him at this point needs to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves how exactly they become that person. And some people still think he's fit to be president, even after knowing all this.
In a vacuum I'm quite willing to defend these remarks as not necessarily inherent descriptions of sexual assault, past that it might be a bit too much effort for too little gain on my part.
What does he not wait for? Written consent? [pause for eyeroll] Does he just grab any woman's pussy or only only the ones he knows will let him because they are into his money or celebrity?
I'm really not here to defend trump, but rather to just share any insights I can scrounge about how this historic election is playing out. I have no actual opinion about the legitimacy of the specific allegations made against him, and I'd prefer to let the courts decide. That said, the fact that these as yet unverified accusations, seemingly almost on their own, have been able to grind to a halt the out of control train that has been Trump ,which so far nothing else has been able to slow, raises a peculiar question about the potential impact that an allegation regarding sexual assault alone, in October, and in the right media climate, could have on the election. It also demonstrates that sex is a prime mover of scandal; a controversy among controversies. It riles us like nothing else does, and not always rationally so.
When 49 year old President Clinton began a sexual relationship with his 22 year old intern, we took it very seriously, even to the point of technically impeaching him, but now we look back on that, and on him, through some sort of biased haze that has us reckon that old Bill is just a lovable sex hound.
So here's the dilemma:
On the one hand, if Trump is in fact a rapist and an incorrigible molester then the public ought to know, both because we have a right to know who is a sexual predator according to current legal standards, and because he is running for president, and sexual predation speaks greatly about character, which many people use as a part of deciding whom to vote for.
On the other hand, if it turns out that the accusations following the pussy grabbing remarks are false or embellished greatly, then Trump will have been right to say "it's all slander and libel and I'm gonna sue them", and he would have a pretty strong case. If it turns out this way, (not that I have an opinion, just exploring the possibility), then the presidential election will have been in the end decided largely through hysteria, not politics.
If our current "democracy" was a horse, would we need to put it down?
No actually in a progressive culture this is not what he's thinking at all. He's thinking that he's the alpha male if he can show he can have sex with any woman. It's the status. Not the actually doing it that he's in for.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
It's true - he's just telling you the truth. Look I grew up amongst rich people. This is nothing but the truth. But of course, you ain't listening to me to stop these fucking progressives with their total lack of sexual morality, and the animals that they themselves have created like Trump. You want to destroy the STUDENT while leaving the MASTER. Trump is Hillary's apprentice. He's the apprentice of progressivism. He is the end product of that ideology. So why not let him destroy them? This is what they deserve, they should be allowed to have it.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Have you not gone to school? That's what folks do in school all the time. I agree it's disgusting. But the progressives have taught them to behave like this. You seem to have nothing contrary to Crooked and her cronies, all of which support all these forms of sexual immorality behind closed doors. Again - this is nothing but the effect of modern progressive culture with its moral laxity with regards to sexuality. Modern culture have taught men, like Trump, that they have high status if they can shag any woman they want to. The more women they can get the higher the status. You've been teaching them this. So why are you surprised? When you heard your friend brag about how many girls he shagged, why haven't you said anything?
I've been talking about these issues day in and day out telling you. Be careful what you're doing... be careful what behaviours you're encouraging, it will affect you... but you didn't listen. You were all like "oh yeah people should be entirely free, free to do whatever, we shouldn't have the shackles of morality bind us"... this is simply what you get!
You think you have no business in the bedroom - good, then you'll get lots of Donalds. Many men in today's world are mini Donalds.
So your criticism of progressivism is a strawman (it doesn't condone sexual harassment or assault) and your defence of Trump is hypocritical (he does seem to condone, and allegedly engage in, sexual harassment and assault).
Look mate - you went by Yahadreas on the other forum right? you said it yourself in the other forum long ago. I remember it clearly. An orgasm is the best gift you can give someone. Why would anyone be against casual sex? If you can give such a wonderful gift to your friend. I remember it clearly. And now you're up in arms that Donald J. Trump wants to give as many women as possible this wonderful gift. The honour of receiving such a gift from the man himself! So I'm curious. Did you change your position? Is casual sex with as many women as possible no longer the ideal? And Donald J. Trump didn't rape them - they let him do it. He was very clear about that. So what happened? Where is the assault? He doesn't need to ask for permission - they let him do it - isn't that clear from what he has said?
No he's not condoning assault. He said they let him do it. He didn't say "I force them to stay while I grab them by the pussy and they try to run away from me".
Look at this. She let him do it. So the guy kisses her on the lips, she gives him her phone number, and then she picks up and actually has a conversation with him and agrees to meet him much later on. My days... is this for real? Now she's upset that she let him do it. What has this culture come to... people sell themselves for nothing. She gave herself over for nothing for Trump, and now she's upset. She should be upset at herself. She says it's not what she wanted for him to kiss her on the lips. That's why she agreed to meet him AFTER THIS INCIDENT and give him her phone number right? >:O My days... What a pathetic progressive culture. We all know that she was proud that Trump kissed her. She wanted it. She only claims otherwise now because she's embarrassed she's been dumped by him, and she's using this as a way to take revenge. We all know that women and men alike extract self-esteem in this progressive culture out of their sex. So that's what she was doing as well - tell all her friends she shagged Mr. Donald J. Trump.
He assumes that women don't have any expression in the context. To say that "women let him" is not a statement of truth (as the women coming forward about his harassment show), but his own ignorance and abuse of the women around him. It's an assumption that any women he desires will want his attention because of his money or social position. He's not saying women "let him." He's saying women are there for him, so it's impossible they could object to his attentions. What's he's offering is not a truth of behaviour, but an assertion that women "by their nature" are their for his (and male) sexual conquest.
Were you even listening? Do you have selective hearing?
Okay so if you're a woman okay, and a guy kisses you without your permission - regardless that he is your favorite movie star and you want a career in Hollywood - will you then give him your phone number and accept to meet him in private? >:O That's like asking to be abused. If someone does that to you and you really don't want it, then you avoid them - you stop talking to them.
You really don't have any moral principles, do you? You talk about liberals being immoral and yet here you are, defending Trump's alleged sexual assault and taking the route of victim-blaming.
Nope - I never said that. What Trump did was very wrong in fact. It's just that it wasn't wrong according to progressive culture. According to progressive culture he is the greatest of men.
Quoting Agustino
So you don't avoid someone who does something like that to you and you don't like him right? You go ahead and meet them in private....
Wrong and wrong. This is a nonsense strawman. Progressivism doesn't promote or condone sexual assault.
Then why are you defending him and his conduct if he is so wrong? :-}
For the third time, his behaviour has nothing to do with progressivism. Repeating that ridiculous strawman won't make it true.
Progressivism doesn't condone or promote sexual assault, so your criticism of it on those grounds is misplaced, and your support of Trump despite him allegedly engaging in such behaviour is hypocritical.
So Trump said what he did because of...progressives? Erm, wat? It's not actually Trump's fault, but who, exactly?
My point is that she's a progressive - she really was proud of this event. She shouldn't have been because she was abused. But she was. That's why she let him do it. She only claims she didn't like it now - much later. If she really disliked the fact that he kissed her without her permission, she should never have met him again. But her actions are telling us the truth. She did meet him again, despite this fact.
Quoting Michael
Oh yes - that's what her parents suggested too - that's what she actually says. How absurd. Is that what you'd tell your daughter? "Oh daddy, Donald J. Trump forcibly kissed me on the lips and I felt very embarrassed, what should I do" - "Oh don't worry honey, it must just be a form of greeting"... really? Is that how you'd advise your child? How can anyone be so naive? Any girl knows that when a man invites her somewhere completely in private where they are all alone it's a possible sign that he's interested in something else. You don't have to be a genius to know this.
It is his fault. But he's merely the product of a system. So to prevent future Trumps we have to change this system which produced him and caused him to be like this. This system based on self-esteem earned at the compromise of other people's sexual integrity.
And your solution to do this is to vote for Trump to be President?
Quoting Agustino
She met him again because she was hoping for a job. What she didn't want was his unsolicited sexual advances.
Quoting Agustino
It's also a possible sign that he wants to talk about her coming to work for him, which is what she was hoping for.
Besides, what would her being naive have to do with anything? It is still the case that Trump allegedly sexually assaulted her. You really are just talking nonsense here. Are you just going for shotgun argumentation now? Random red herrings in the hope that you can distract us from noticing how wrong you are?
"It's his fault, but it's only the system so he has no responsibility to prevent it."
Yeah... this is contradictory bullshit, Agustino.
Yes because I want you to see what the end conclusion of your philosophy is. I want those progressives to be destroyed by him - because they deserve it.
Quoting Michael
I haven't heard the answer to my question. So I will ask you again. If a man forcibly kisses you, and you strongly dislike this and feel abused, will you give him your phone number and agree to meet him IN PRIVATE? Yes or no?
Quoting Michael
>:O in Alice in Wonderland maybe. Look I've lived in your country. People in the UK for example don't think like this. I can tell you very clearly. Because I know, especially from the days I was in University. A girl knows why she is called for if a guy were to say something "Oh let's go to my place to have some drinks" and it's just the two of them. She's not dumb living under a rock. So don't run away from the glaringly obvious truth. She liked it. She shouldn't have liked it - yes that is true - but that's a different discussion.
No it's his fault means he should be judged and trialed for his actions. It's the fault of the system means in order to prevent future Trumps, we need to change our governing philosophy, which has led to Trump.
Ah, yes, so let us then elect a man that has, is, and will continue to abuse this American society that, I might add, has so kindly propelled him to such a place of power as he now finds himself.
In other..."words", Agustino...
?????????????????
Good - so this system now must be destroyed by him before we can put something else in its place. Then it will all be obvious what is at fault. Trump will cure us from progressivism.
This won't happen, in any way. That you think so is a travesty. You and many others are precisely the same kind of people out in the world that will slip their pants down and gladly bend over for those who promise to do the right thing, but in all reality, will never do so. It's sad that you actually think Trump is an honest man and will do anything good, let alone anything that he's actually said.
I also must admit that I'm confused as to why you even care so much about US politics.
Have you answered the question? Why are you avoiding it Michael?
I don't believe he's an honest person, I don't know where you get this from. He's more honest than Hillary that is true - but he's not an honest person. I have told Thorongil in our discussion today exactly this.
Aaaaaand yet you still believe he'll do something for social conservatism.
zzz
Yes he'll destroy progressivism. He won't actually do anything positive for social conservatism. He'll just do the negative part of the job. He'll expose this corruption, including himself, for what they really are!
You really have no leg to stand on here, Agustino. Trump seems to be promoting and is allegedly engaging in the exact type of behaviour that you condemn, and yet you're willing to vote him into the Presidency. That's hypocrisy. And your reasoning for this – that it will undermine the progressivism that promotes sexual assault – is both a strawman, given that progressivism doesn't promote sexual assault, and, again, hypocritical, given that you're voting into a power a man who seems to promote such immoral behaviour.
No amount of victim blaming is going to save you.
So then I suppose the answer is yes. If your favorite movie star forcibly kisses you, and you're hoping to have a Hollywood career, you give them your phone number and agree to meet them in a PRIVATE PLACE. Is this the advice you would give your daughter for example - would you tell her the kiss is just a greeting?
For some reason I think you're not being honest. We both really do know this isn't what you'd do. And yet you refuse to admit what this implies about her honesty and how she really perceived the events at the time.
Quoting Michael
Yes because I want to unmask this sexually immoral progressive culture. Trump is the baboon to do it. That's the type of person we need.
A more concise expression of your faults I have not seen. What matters is, you know, not avoiding immoral actions in the first place, but rather just that those who perform them are punished (by becoming president???).
In practice, you are only interested in punishment. The question of one's moral responsibility to other individuals is irrelevant. Trump's responsibility to not sexuality hassass and assault women doesn't matter to you, not when there is punishment to be had.
Even punishing someone for being in a situation where they become a victim of immortality is more important to you. A woman meets a hassasser on the chance there might be a job, and the wrongness of that action, and it's punishment (i.e. "Well, what did you expect. You deserved it), is more significant than Trump's moral responsibility to others.
No Trump's moral responsibility is important. That's why I said he should be judged for it. I do recommend voting him for President because it's a vote for pulling the masks off from progressivism and unmasking all its lies, including the sexually immoral society it has created. Hence why it's a strategic vote - not a vote for support.
Judged how? You are giving him a free pass. You don't specify any sanction against, either lawful or social. Indeed, you activatly say it doesn't really matter, that's "it's just the system" and place responsibility for the action on the woman looking for a job.
If your idea of destroying progressivism is replacing it with the rotten throwaways of some social conservatism playing as the devil, then sorry, I'mma say nope to that all day, every day.
Judged by being trialed and if found guilty put in jail. Simple. I have never said it's just the system. I've always insisted he is responsible. But the system has encouraged and will keep encouraging the existence of people like him unless we take down progressivism.
A destruction is painful. Of course. But it's necessary BEFORE we can introduce social conservatism. A corrupt and decadent society like today will not accept social conservatism unless we can show them the tragedy that is the end result of progressivism. They still cling to fictions, that Trump really isn't the end product of their society, or it's possible to have the promiscuity while avoiding men like Trump - those are lies. Trump is the perfect baboon to do it.
So he's meant to run the country from jail is he?
Furthermore, the evidence is against progressivism causing people like him. Even a quick look at history shows the rich and powerful doing exactly the actions like him all over the place.
Perhaps worse, one arm of "progressivism" (feminism) is one of the few social movements to sexual harassment and assault seriously, which has had a significant impact on the issue within last few decades. In terms of sexual harassment and assualt, your politcal answers would actually take us backwards.
No he should be arrested after he finishes his first term.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
At least it was just the rich and powerful. Now it's everyone. That's the problem. Back then it was contained.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
The first wave of feminism was respectable - requesting suffrage, etc. But the current feminazis .... they are utter disaster. They want women to go naked on the street. They want women to have 1000 sexual partners and say to everyone how many sexual partners they have without ever being called sluts or being told what they're doing is immoral. That's lunacy.
"If the world is not a fiery pit, we'll make it one. Then they'll understand the horror they've turned the world into."
The only trouble is, you know, it was you that made that fiery pit people finally couldn't stand. Not "progressivism" responsibility, but your own.
Quoting Agustino
I agree. But the progressives have stolen society. It used to be conservatives, for most of history, with people all having respect for values and morality. Nobody questioned moral standards. People made mistakes and had failings, that's true, but everyone was aware of what is right and wrong. Now there is no moral standard anymore. We see all sorts of despicable people coming on TV - including Trump, Crooked, and all of them. Society has never been so corrupt. It's about time we put an end to progressivism and restore the moral order that has always kept society stable - for a certain time.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It's not in my own image. All religious people - according to their traditions at least - would like to see the world this way. No religion for example morally permits sexual immorality, promiscuity and all these disgusting vices. If any religious leader from the past would be alive - he'd march with a sword in hand today. Immorality has never been at the surface as much as today.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
The world is a fiery pit already. It's just that people have to wake up and understand it. We have to bring religion back. We have to bring social order back. We have to bring morality - including sexual morality back. We have to bring back family stability. We have to stop the proceedings of going for an abortion as if one is going to buy candy. Really we're having a lot of problems. It's time we wake up, and take this world back - and Trump, even though he is evil - is like the pitch black just before the break of dawn (as Heidegger would say). We've had enough darkness, vice and immorality. Let's bring it to a culmination with Trump.
>:O
Quoting Agustino
Muhammad's laughing beneath his green dome.
Quoting Agustino
You're never going to get that. You'll be searching for that forever, all the while propping up creeps like Trump in the delusion that he'll help fix the problem. It's quite frankly shocking how on one hand you say that the world is fallen, yet think it to be entirely "fixable", to coin some Trump terminology.
The plain truth, beautifully stated.
(Y)
I don't know why, but I am reminded of Every Which Way but Loose.
:s
The Dutch field of grass looks different when you're standing in it.
Exactly, what Agustino has been presenting and then railing against is an infantile caricature of progressivism, which focuses on issues such as rampant consumerism, and sexual licentiousness with phrases like "political correctness" and "Hollywood values" thrown in randomly to the mix. As if these were the progressive priorities, to make everyone buy stuff and bang each other while watching movies about adultery and how to destroy free speech. As if progressives weren't more interested in equal access to education, eliminating discrimination, affordable healthcare, and creating economic opportunities for all regardless of their social class. Exactly the sort of priorities that help countries move up the HDI. And, of course, being against sexual licentiousness and consumerism is not incompatible with being a progressive anyhow. A progressive is no more likely to put an adulterer on a pedestal than a social conservative is, and many progressives, including myself, think consumerism is out of control.
(Last point is that extremists like Agustino, being himself a caricature of social conservatism, make it harder for sensible social conservatives to be understood.)
Quoting Benkei
Field of tulips, surely. :D
This is really the heart it it. For all the moralising that Agustino does, he still doesn't understand what every normal, decent person so obviously gets without these grand moral theories of sexual sin. It's so warped. You don't knowingly elect a sexual predator to president. Trump should be put on trial, not into the fucking oval office. You don't give him the success and power he wants.
It has nothing to do with being alpha male, either. Alpha males, which is a stupid bloody term, do not need to molest women against their will. That's the definition of being alpha male. It just makes you a disgusting human being.
Trump is not an alpha male. Jimmy Savile was not an alpha male. Bill Cosby is not an alpha male.
Think about it, Agustino. Donald Trump looked at a 10 year old girl and thought of making her into a sexual conquest when legal. He saw sexual potential in a 10 year old. You are defending that persons chances of becoming president. I would ask you how you became that sort of person, but I'm afraid I've already tried to make sense of it. I get you want some grand shift in American morality, however nonsensical that sounds to me, but maybe not by electing a potential child rapist and self confessed sexual predator to do it? Trump doesn't deserve what you want to give him. Wait another 4 years and see who can do it next time round. This evil you seem to see all around you isn't going anywhere. But that's because you put it there with this good vs evil mindset of yours.
How is a Trump presidency going to achieve this? Do you really think that Trump being President is going to stop people from having casual sex? How?
And how is a Trump presidency going to help stop abortion? The Supreme Court has already ruled that abortion is a constitutional right, and that's not something that the President can overrule. The best he can do is appoint a pro-life Justice to replace Scalia, hope that the Supreme Court agrees to consider the case again, hope that this new pro-life Justice disagrees with the previous decision (one can believe that abortion is immoral but still agree that it's allowed by the Constitution; as Scalia himself said "I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says."), and then hope that a majority of the other Justices think the same way.
So leaving aside the blatant hypocrisy in voting for a man you consider to be a sexual deviant in your fight against sexual deviancy, it's simply delusional to think that Trump being President is going to somehow bring back Christian sexual morality. That ship has long sailed. The U.S. has moved on (thankfully).
Did you mean "that's not the definition of being alpha male"?
I meant alpha males, by definition, do not need to sexually assault women. Because by definition they're the kind of man a woman would want to have sexual contact with. Neither do they need to brag about it actually, because any 'alpha male' would not be insecure enough to feel the need to convince others of their status. They're confident and their actions speak for themselves. If you even believe this alpha male rubbish, that is.
I even hated writing that because there is obviously no such thing as one kind of man that all women want to sleep with. And it's so insulting to women to suggest that they'll be willing to sleep with any man because he's good looking, or that they'll let a man like Donald Trump grope them because he's rich and powerful. Which is why I think the term alpha male is so ridiculous.
Ah, I see. I read it backwards.
And conservatives aren't interested in these I suppose? We don't need progressivism as it is practiced and understood today in order to be interested in all these other important considerations of the state. I haven't criticised progressivism for its attitudes on these issues in any case, so I don't know why you're throwing this red herring out there. I didn't say we need to stop progressivism because it encourages the elimination of discrimination, etc.
Quoting Baden
Oh so you apparently don't think the growth of technology itself, and improving economic conditions is the major cause of this? It's the ideology of progressivism... You should be aware first of all, that countries like Sweden have proeminent ultra-right groups that are a lot worse than you think I am. These people hate immigrants, and have even been involved in the murder of immigrants. In many other parts of central and northern Europe extremists very similar to the Nazis are rising up. Proeminent ultra-right groups that, by the way, I don't agree with, because they're not socially conservative. But they will rise up, and we may get another war, because some dumb progressives want to let all the immigrants in, and this annoys their own people. But they don't care what their people want - and so they let these nazis rise up. The nazis are the outcome of their own worldview - of its own shortcomings.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3349890/Sweden-Home-IKEA-meatballs-ABBA-racism-Swedish-right-wing-went-joke-big-political-player-just-seven-years.html
These right wingers also share progressivism's sexual immorality, and I despise them - just to make that clear. So all your post is, is again some non-intellectual cursing and stomping of your feet. If you have anything useful to say that actually adds to the discussion please go ahead. But just to insult and claim some counterfactual statements about me, and base your thinking of certain countries on what you read in the corrupt media, instead of actually on having gone there - that's a shame.
And I've agreed he should be put on trial and probably arrested - after his first term.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
No, but I have never claimed any of this. I merely claimed progressivism removed sexual morality, and made a virtue out of promiscuity. I claimed that this is merely the outcome of that. Do you disagree?
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
He didn't do it against their will - they let him do it. How many times does one need to repeat that? It's true that he's abusing them, and they should never have let him do it - but they did. Because they too wanted to have sex with a rich and powerful person - like everyone else in a progressive culture, they wanted the social status that comes out of it. It's not my fault that they have continuously since the 1960s been removing all sexual morality and encouraging promiscuity as a source of self-esteem. Men like Donald Trump are the result of that. And what do you want to do? You want to get rid of him, but you want to keep on encouraging sexual promiscuity right? Because that's good for society - so long as they let you do it - but hey, they did let him do it. Is this the world you want to live in? Where men are encouraged as a source of value to have sex with as many women - and where women are encouraged similarly?
I have said Trump personally and his administration will not improve sexual morality. But it will make the problem of sexual morality very clear to the public.
Quoting Michael
Exactly.
Quoting Michael
That's what you progressives want to trick us to believe. You want us to give up - "the ship has already sailed - you'll never get your world back. Go back to sitting in your desk and bear it out - watch how your children abandon your values, just bear it out while we take your world" - who are you to say that? Do you know the future? Otherwise this is just propaganda. The truth is you hope that the ship has sailed - just like how I hope it hasn't.
Well I have to start by saying that my knowledge of Islam is very limited so please bare that in mind. All that I know is from a few Muslim friends that I've made over the duration of my life and from what I hear in the mass-media. It's true that the mass-media paints a not very nice picture generally. I haven't personally studied the religion in any level of detail so I don't know to say if this is accurate. I'll merely talk about my experience with Muslim people that I've known. In general they were quite nice people - decent, kind and moral. They valued sexual morality - including abstaining from pre-martial sex, promiscuity, adultery and so forth. In fact - these people were ahead of most of the so called "Christians" I've known in terms of this. The only negative I really noticed in some - not all - is that they do insist - overtly or covertly - that you convert to their religion. But apart from this dogmatism, those that I know have been good people, at least in their behaviour towards me.
So when you say Muhammad is laughing - I don't know what to understand - because it seems to me, from the Muslims I know (none of them were of the sort of radical kind that we see ISIS being for example), that they do take their morality seriously - and they do share the Christian idea of what constitutes sexual morality - as do the other religions from my readings and experience. So I'm not sure what is true and what isn't true about Muhammad - but it seems that these people who follow him do take morality seriously.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
"You're never going to get that" is the lie the progressives are telling us every single day. They want religious believers to sit down and accept their dominance over the world. And I don't want to do this. Why should religious believers sit down? They manipulate us - they say "Oh you are such moral people - you can't break your principles and vote for someone who doesn't represent you... you can't tell others that their way of life is immoral... you go back to sitting down while we reshape your world the way we want to... you just have to ride out the wave, don't worry, just take a seat - the boat has already left". That's what they're telling us. And obviously the truth is I don't know if Judaeo-Christian moral values can be brought back in Western society. But the complementary truth to this, is that the progressives don't know that they can't be brought back either. So all we have to do is take up the sword and fight for what we believe in - just like they're doing. They're doing exactly the same thing. Why should we let them do it? That's why they're beating us - that's why they're winning. I don't think the world is fixable - I hope it is, but I have no certainty in this. I will try to change it for the better.
We've lost for long enough. Religion has been losing for more than a hundread years. Why should we keep on losing? Because they're telling us, and brainwashing us from childhood that we've already lost, not to bother? I will bother - because even if we have already lost, it's honorable that we fight to the end - upholding the truth and the light. Isn't that what we're called to do as religious believers? That we will live proclaiming the truth, and fighting for the truth?
Well WW, tell me is there a conflict between the secular ideology of progressivism and religious believers judging by their creeds? Yes or no?
Look it's relatively simple. Progressives and conservatives agree on many things - including racism, discrimination, poverty, etc. They disagree on some profound aspects though - that have to do with society. These - in concrete terms - do not revolve in abstract disagreements - such as moral absolutism vs moral relativism, etc. These latter are just justifications for it. Do you agree? Ok, so if they don't lie in abstract disagreement, they must lie in practical ones. What are the practical disagreements? It's over behaviour - more specifically sexual behaviour because we agree on all other behaviour like theft, rape, murder, etc. The conservative wants to live in a society where sexual morality is respected. The progressive says well and good, do that, but we don't want to do that as well. Now this is itself is not a problem. But it does become a problem when we live in an infected culture like today's where having promiscuous sex has been turned into a virtue - you're the alpha male, you're desired, you're strong, you're sexually potent, etc. Why? Because conservatives cannot live in such a society. How can you raise up your children in such a world? They will learn that to be amongst the "cool" people, to have social status, you need to engage in immorality. That's the culture that is dominated by progressives. It's just the truth. So they shouldn't shy away from it. It's like having a community in your society which doesn't eat beef, but your society says that to have social status you must eat beef. There's a conflict there. So why do you refuse to recognize it?
Look at how the moderator says she's never heard people talk like Donald Trump. I really wonder what world she's living in. My biggest problem isn't that Donald Trump is like that - my biggest problem is that most men are like that. Almost everywhere I went I've heard men talk about their sexual exploits. How they grabbed this and that, what they did, etc. Hell even a work colleague while I was in UK asked me to grab his friend's ass when I was going to meet her for the first time! The media is so fucking fake pretending they don't know what world we're living in. They pretend like this sexual exploitation of women by men and the other way around doesn't go around daily in our societies. Like this isn't a source of self-esteem for people created by this very progressive society, which encourages one to get ask many men or women as possible. When a man asks them to go for a drink to his place - they know very well what it means - but they never admit it. Such hypocrisy! Unbelievable... unbelievable...
When they go to nightclubs and ask a girl to their home - and then they start kissing her, and she doesn't refuse, they don't call this sexual abuse (although it really is!). But when Donald Trump does it - "ahhh he abused them!!! He forced them! They thought they were going for employment!!". How shameful - and even more shameful that these people don't realise that it's not Donald Trump it's this disgusting immoral society that is the biggest problem (and they are part of it - very important!)
Once you actually start to define the terms in detail, and point to the populations of actual people holding to those strict definitions, you begin to realise that these are extremely vague concepts that are significantly grey in reality because peoples diverse range of beliefs don't neatly map onto your simplistically defined categories. But you do not understand this point in spite of it being made to you repeatedly over the last few days by myself and others. It was remarkably enlightening when you said labelling, such as 'left' and 'right', "simplifies things and makes them easier to understand". You don't seem to possess the self-awareness to realise how revealing that admission was to the rest of us. Which is why I compared your thought to a child's when they feel comforted by the lack of complexity their understanding is required to grasp.
"This is also why I could be quite anxious, and also frequently worried about my health at small signs. But I've learned to train my judgement - to take a decision and stick to it - trust my judgement instead of doubt it. Now I'm very rarely if at all troubled by anxiety for example."
Do you not see what is starring you right in the face? If you define and think about the world in such a way that it's inherent complexity is deliberately removed, you're going to sleep easier at night because you feel you understand what is going on around you.
There are differences amongst, say Evangelical Christians, of course. But there is a core which is shared by all. Sexual morality for example is shared by all Christians - because it's part of their Holy text which guides them.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
No I deliberately ignored what you've said because I think it's a mischaracterisation and doesn't reflect the truth. What can I say about it other than that? It's just false. There are beliefs which unite entire groups of people. Not all beliefs will be shared, there will be many differences. But there are also similarities - which is what you ignore. If there was no common thing that all Christians shared - we couldn't call them Christians in the first place!
No it isn't! This is completely your own projection.
Does the Bible state that promiscuity, fornication, adultery and sex with women other than your wife is immoral?
Quoting Agustino
You don't own a monopoly on the truth, Agustino. Just because you're rabid about this or that doesn't mean you can be so authoritarian as to say everyone else is dead wrong. I also find it toilsome that you have the nerve to assume me some liberal peasant that has been brainwashed and manipulated, and that I just don't know it. Sorry, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I've sipped from a spiked glass of kool-aid and now cannot think freely.
I haven't assumed you to be that, I said there's the tendency for all of us to be manipulated this way. Also what makes you think that I think of you as a "liberal peasant"?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Sure. So I've asked you some questions in that post, so that we can have a conversation and think freely. Why don't you let me know what your position is on these issues. I'm curious honestly to know.
It may be true, but it doesn't follow that therefore all Christians share those beliefs. Some Christians don't even know what's in the Bible because they haven't read it. Some Christians are liberal in their sexuality. Some Christians do not believe homosexuality is a sin. Some do not believe divorce, adultery, or pre-marital sex are sins.
Even those who have read the Bible pick and choose the bits they want to follow; no one can believe everything in the Bible because there are so many contradictions. There are so many denominations within Christianity all with different beliefs, and there are as many types of Christian as there are Christians in America.
There might be strong correlations among close-knit groups (even then they won't all believe the same thing 100% of the time), but if you compare them to the other Christians in the rest of America, the world, or other tight-knit groups in either, you'll find there's probably more differences than there are similarities and there is not a single defining commonality between them all. There is not one single necessary condition for all Christians. Even if you said it's their belief in the same God, ask them to define it and they won't all give the same definition.
Is someone a Christian if he doesn't believe in the teachings of Christianity's foundational text? Can someone be a Christian while not following Christian practicies? Really? Then in what sense are they Christians?
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
If they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, then they are not Christians - that much is self-evident, because we call someone a Christian who follows the Bible. Catholics differ from Eastern Orthodox - but they both follow the Bible. Teachings which aren't in the Bible are different from one group to the other. But those teachings which are in the Bible are shared. Sexual morality is one of them.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
St. Thomas Aquinas and many other thinkers who have studied the Bible would not agree with you. So please - state that it's your opinion that there are contradictions. This isn't shared by many people - some of whom are very intelligent people.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
As I said, there are differences and similarities. There is a core which is common. You ignore this. You only emphasise the differences. I agree there are differences.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
This is not true. The Orthodox and the Catholic traditions are different in rituals, etc. but in terms of sexual morality for example, they are the same. Because that's what the Bible teaches. You can't ignore the teachings of the Bible and call yourself Christian.
You don't make for much nuance here. You're either a social conservative like you, or a deluded liberal. There's zero fine-line.
And I also don't know what discussion you're after anymore here. Seems to just boil down to projection.
It's like he's never heard of No True Scotsman.
It is entirely down to projection and fallacies.
Really?
I would agree that if they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, they are not Christians, so I recently concluded that anyone supporting such an ungodly man like Trump is not a Christian. Christian authorities are pretty unanimous that God's law is a form of absolute morality, therefore these strange appeals to consequentialism, (the ends justify the means), ought to be rejected.
Okay let me illustrate. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe priests should be married. Catholics don't. Eastern Orthodox Christians accept the use of condoms as non-abortive contraception. Catholics don't. And on and on. But both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics consider promiscuity, fornication, adultery and sex outside of marriage immoral. Now do you Mr. Heister Eggcart disagree with any of this? If you don't - then you should recognise that your characterisation "you're either a social conservative like you or a deluded liberal" is nothing but slander.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
I'm looking for your answer to these questions my friend. And if you think the questions are wrongly phrased - or they're the wrong questions - then I'm looking for your position, as a religious person, on these issues that the questions attempt to tackle.
No I never said a single belief. I said sexual morality is one of them. So don't lie. Have some honor in this discussion. Sexual morality is one of the core tenets of Christianity. Not the only one. If you disagree with that, I'd advise you to go to a Roman Catholic and ask them. Go to an Eastern Orthodox Christian and ask them - see for yourself.
Both.
Would you not say so? Can you go around raping women and be a Christian? Would you call someone who goes and beats people on the street but says he believes Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour a Christian?
Quoting swstephe
>:O Yes you should know that those passages are passages of advice to specific communities in specific circumstances. Furthermore I am not supporting Trump. So I have no clue what you're talking about. Voting for him isn't the same as supporting him.
As I said the old progressive tropes - "you're too moral to beat us - let us take over your world and your society you just sit down". Lies. Sitting down in the face of immorality is immoral.
So that's the game you're going to play? When something in the Bible tells you to do something that you disagree with you'll just counter by saying that it doesn't apply to you? But when it tells you to do something that you agree with then you'll say that it's a universal decree?
How do you determine which of the teachings are directed only at specific communities in specific circumstances and which are directed at us all? What if I were to say that the condemnation of fornication and adultery only applies to those to which swstephe's passages apply?
Of course it is. You're helping him achieve a position of power. What, exactly, do you think it means to support someone?
The extent to which you will try to weasel your way out of things is mind boggling.
Would you be surprised if I told you there isn't one perfect way of defining who is and isn't a Christian because there are issues with them all?
Whoever is in (and achieves) authority is endorsed by God. So it doesn't really matter who we vote for. And given this, how can a Christian criticise the laws and policies and Supreme Court decisions that those in authority make? If Row vs Wade didn't have God's support then it wouldn't have been made in the first place.
No that's how you frame it. The Bible doesn't tell me to do that at all. That's what you - who don't understand the Bible - thinks it is telling me. So stop with this nonsense.
Quoting Michael
By understanding the Bible my dear. You have to read it in context, and understand what the message is. The 10 Commandments for example - which say don't commit adultery, don't covet your neighbour's wife or engage in fornication - and other such instances refer to universal commands which apply in all cases. Some of the letters to specific communities refer to practices which are encouraged in that case in regards to a specific problem. You read in context and use your God given brain to understand.
Furthermore, the passages quoted have nothing to do with voting for Trump. The Bible doesn't say if you vote for Trump in this particular situation you're doing something wrong - although I would agree it is a possible argument to make based on the Bible - but it's not as clear cut as you want to make it, nor would you, most likely, be able to make it because your knowledge of the Bible and Judaic culture is insufficient.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
No the fact there are problems with all means that we have a standard, which we haven't yet found, with which we're comparing them when we say there are issues with all.
Quoting Michael
You're misunderstanding the Bible - if you want, open a thread, and we will discuss the meaning of Bible passages. The fact is that the beleivers - who follow the Bible - and their authorities - including the Catholic Church amongst many others are against Row vs Wade. So if what you were saying were true, they wouldn't be against it. It's very likely you don't understand the Bible. You just snip a piece from here and a piece from there. What a joke...
Well, technically, Roe vs. Wade essentially ruled that laws prohibiting abortion would violate the "right to privacy" implied by the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". It was reasoned that the government couldn't arrest someone for an abortion unless they were able to constantly monitor medical procedures.
Also, technically, it is possible to amend and repeal any amendment, even in the bill of rights. That was demonstrated when prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment, by simply saying "the 18th is repealed". Trump has been making a lot of vague promises, which seem to imply that he might be open to repeal parts of the constitution. I'm not sure how many of his followers are aware of this, or even counting on it.
Here is a partial list I've been making on things he has said:
1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
4. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6. Right of accused persons, e.g., right to speedy and public trial.
8. Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punisments.
14. Birthright citizenship
That's just a rough sampling. So to appeal an amendment, he would either have to get enough support in Congress to create the amendment and in the Senate to approve it. He might have to work on a complete overhaul of the US election system so politicians don't have to fear a public revolt. He could also potentially declare martial law and the suspension of rights.
However, I suspect he is mostly motivated by his own ego, so he might not do anything more than get a few executive actions, tax reliefs and pardons through for his and his friends assets, then just play golf for the rest of his term.
Quoting Agustino
I think you mistake me for Whiskers. I've never disputed this. Also, how encompassing are you using these terms "conservative" or "liberal"? Because I thought we were talking more politics here, rather than religion. I mean, I realize that everything is all interconnected, but..? I was mentioning morality and such as separated from religion. I think you can do that...
This is circular. You define a Christian as someone who follows the (correct interpretation of the) Bible but then determine which interpretation of the Bible is correct by looking to see what self-professed Christians believe.
And what do you do when two self-professed Christians disagree on the correct interpretation of the Bible, as is the case when it comes to sexual morality?
Do you know how to tell who is and is not a [s]true scotsman[/s] true christian?
Oh yeah as if I hadn't heard that argument from clueless atheists a billion times before. There isn't only one correct interpretation of the Bible. That's why both Eastern Orthodox Christians and Catholics are following the Bible for example. But there's quite a lot of wrong interpretations of the Bible, and yours are amongst them if you believe that anyone who follows the Bible could argue that casual sex for example isn't wrong.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Do they follow the Bible? If yes then they're true Christians. If no, then they're not. How do you determine this? By understanding what the Bible says and what it doesn't say. About sexual morality matters are clear. About whether clergy should marry or not matters aren't so clear. About whether condoms or similar devices should be used, the matters are also not so clear. So it is conceivable that differences can exist between believers on these matters.
Ok my apologies.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
For the sake of this specific discussion in this thread...
Progressive/Liberal = permissive when it comes to sexual morality - permissive (and encouraging) of casual sex, adultery, fornication, promiscuity, etc.
Conservative = the opposite position. Restrictive and discouraging of casual sex, adultery, fornication, etc.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
So do you think casual sex is moral - apart from religion?
Given that there are those who follow the Bible but who argue that casual sex isn't wrong, I'm right in believing that there are such people. But, of course, according to you they're not really Christians because they're following a wrong interpretation of the Bible. And you know what the correct interpretation is because you've looked at what self-professed Christians believe.
Again, it's circular.
And you haven't explained to me how you determine which interpretation(s) are correct. When two Christians disagree, how do you figure out who is right?
I doubt there are such people who understand the Bible and argue that way. But of course you can go on pretending. If they do exist, then yes their interpretation is wrong (because it flat out contradicts the Bible - that's why). It's one of the many interpretations which are wrong. There's also many correct interpretations - this just isn't one of them.
Quoting Michael
Depends what kind of disagreement there is. If it's a doctrinal disagreement - should priests marry or not? Then you look at the relevant Bible passages, you see what is said, as well as your own knowledge and understanding of life and you discuss. Which interpretation is likely to be closest to the truth - which agrees with the whole of the Bible the most? And that's not necessarily a black and white answer on such a matter. I have views on it - other Christians I know disagree, and that's fine. I understand their reasons for disagreement, and I see how they could disagree and still be within the framework of the Bible. But on casual sex (known as fornication) there are multiple very very clear answers in the Bible, and also in your own life by the way. I mean do you want your wife to have been shagged by a thousand men? Does your wife want you to have shagged a thousand women before her? Let's be real - none of us like that - that's disgusting actually.
So there is an infallible definition of a true Christian, we don't know what it is, but we've compared it with all the previously tried definitions and we know it isn't the same thing. How do you even know there is one if we haven't found it?
If I hide an object in my fist and ask you to find and bring me the same object without knowing what it is beforehand, how do you know you've found the right one? Not only that, there might not even be an object in my hand in the first place.
Tell me, which of these are the true Christians? How do you know?
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I never agreed there are problems with all definitions of true Christians :) I said even if there are, it would still only mean that we realise its a problem because we understand when we look at each definition that it is missing something. How do we understand this? By comparing it to some standard, otherwise it would be impossible.
What does what I want have to do with what is right? This is a non sequitur (unless you want to argue that morality is a personal thing, which I doubt you do).
Furthermore, even though I wouldn't want my would-be wife to have slept with a thousand men, I also wouldn't want her to be a virgin. So if what I want is the measure of what is right, it then follows that the issue isn't with casual sex tout court but with excessive casual sex. It is right (or at least acceptable) to have had some casual sex.
It's hardly clear. The term usually used is "adultery", which refers to a man (whether married or unmarried) having sex with a married woman (who isn't his wife).
There's also mention of "sexual immorality", a translation of the Greek word "porneia" which means "illicit sexual intercourse", i.e. sexual intercourse which is forbidden by law, rules, or custom. This doesn't prima facie include pre-marital sex (and certainly doesn't in today's age where there are no laws or rules or customs against it – at least not in the progressive societies that you're condemning).
And even any mention of the wrongness of pre-martial sex can be interpreted as "advice to specific communities in specific circumstances" as you say, presumably like the condemnation of eating shellfish, and so can be understand as inapplicable to us.
Are you a true Christian?
Quoting Agustino
I'd agree...
Uh, no, I don't think so.
Quoting Agustino
Apart from religion? What do you mean by that, exactly? (I actually typo'd and wrote sexactly >:O ) Sex is sex. It's not special whether one does or does not partake in it regardless of their faith, or lack thereof.
I am of the opinion that sex is only moral when it is necessary as a means of healthily releasing the sexual tension most people instinctively find themselves crippled by. I myself am thankful that I have a very low sex drive and thus am not burdened all that much with this dilemma. If one has sex just because it feels good, then I'll be unimpressed. If a couple, say, must have sex in order for them to keep "loving" them, then to me that quite distinctly tells me that they don't actually love each other. They're only lusting after the other's body.
Well if in society we were all to do what others and we ourselves don't want, we'd live in an utter hell-hole.
Quoting Michael
For you maybe that's acceptable. For Christians definitely it's not, and for most people that I've met it's also not. Most guys that I've met enjoy shagging other women - but if I were to ask them if they would like others to do the same to their future wives they always are a bit shocked and say "of course not!". Most women that I've met want a man for whom they are special, and no woman is like them to their man. These are just natural human desires in that most people have a clear emotional reaction to them.
Now a question that you should ask yourself - and you don't have to tell me nor do I care to know - is whether you don't want your wife to be virgin because you actually don't think this would be good - or you don't want her to be a virgin because you're not a virgin either? For me, I made the mistake of having sex with two girlfriends I had when I was a teenager, and I admit that they were mistakes and I wouldn't do them if I could live again. But anyway, for a time I also felt negatively about a woman being a virgin. But I realised I was just upset at my own behaviour - that I couldn't be that for her. Now I look at virgin women with nothing but admiration and respect.
Quoting Michael
No the term used for casual sex in the Bible isn't adultery. It is fornication.
Quoting Michael
In the culture in which the Bible was written it does imply that. Maybe in modern culture it doesn't. Furthermore, fornication is the term we were previously talking about not adultery just to make that clear.
No. Answer my question.
I should've said OR adultery, or bla bla. There are some progressives which are encouraging of even adultery, just not most.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Because you talked of morality apart from religion. So I was inquiring about it.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
So. Suppose you are married to a woman, and she becomes crippled and can't have sex anymore. You are overcome by your sexual desires, etc. is it moral in that case to have sex with another woman to release the sexual tension you are troubled by?
Furthermore, if you are a regular husband, and your wife simply doesn't want to have as much sex as you do, is it moral for you to have sex with other women to release the tension you feel?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I agree.
Answer my question. Are you a true Christian?
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
[s]Your question seems silly to me my friend[/s]. I would hope I'm a true Christian - although I have a lot of defects and shortcomings which prevent me from achieving that standard many times. So I'm not sure if I'm a true Christian - I would hope so, and if I'm not, I would hope that one day I can be.
You're not a true Christian if you don't follow the Bible.
If you're not a true Christian, what happens to you after you die?
Quoting Agustino
Yes, and there are some conservatives out there batty enough to vote for Trump O:)
Quoting Agustino
There are quite a few too many Christians out there that think you can't be moral or even discuss morality unless you're religious.
Quoting Agustino
Nope.
What you deserve shall happen to you - and I'm not sure what that means. I'm not sure if you're a devout Muslim, or Buddhist, or any other of the major faiths you'll end up in hell. I hope God will have mercy of me and give me the strength and wisdom to be a true Christian until I die, although I probably wouldn't deserve it by myself.
Indeed :P
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Okay. I'm not one of them then ;)
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Ok so then I suppose your previous definition wasn't quite what you meant:
Quoting Heister Eggcart
So what really is your idea about when sex is moral then?
My clarification is this - sex and sexual tension is a two way street.The only reason two people would have sex is to do so out of compassion for the other's struggle with it, which they also must share. It has to be an honest coming together, and for the right reasons.
Quoting Agustino
So we've established you're not a Christian. It's not even that you're not a "true" Christian. You, Agustino, are not a Christian. It's as simple as that. You are as much of a Christian as a member of ISIS, or a cancerous progressive. What do you think about that? What do you think of the possibility of going to hell for not being a Christian?
Quoting Agustino
And if you're not sure if non-Christians will even go to hell, what the bloody hell is the point of Christianity? I might as well become one of those raunchy cancerous progressives and have lots of blasphemous sex because for all you know I might not even go to hell.
Is Purgatory real? If I'm a sinner I might end up there, I don't mind waiting around a while before I go to heaven. If it means I get to have lots of pre-marital sex in the meantime.
What do you mean a two-way street in this case?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
So I suppose you must necessarily be talking at least of couples and more likely of married people here given that they must "share the struggle" am I right? So this would agree with the statement that sex before marriage (or at least before being a couple) is wrong.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
What would you think about married people having sex because they enjoy the intimacy and spiritual relationship they have with each other?
I think that if that's what I deserve and that is God's will, then I shall go to hell. I wouldn't want that to happen - quite obviously - but if that's what it ends up being that's what it is. What do I think of the possibility? Well I feel fear and repulsion. I might add that I feel weakness, and I feel nothingness too. But I don't feel disgust, I don't feel injustice, I don't feel hatred towards God. It would only be what I deserve afterall.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I'm quite sure if you do that you will go to hell. I'm not so sure if you're a devout Muslim, or Jew, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Taoist, etc. that you'll go to hell after you die. And it depends on your inner life to be honest. It is possible for someone to be very sinful and afterwards find repentance and be saved by God's grace.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I'm not sure. The only problem is that you don't make deals with God. If this is what is in your heart - then you won't ever go to Heaven. Purgatory nor anything else are licenses to sin.
Wouldn't know what this means. Empty words and hokus pokus to me.
Two married people having sex because they either want to have children or they just love each other. They do this freely, not because they are compelled and therefore enslaved by their lust. Do you not think this is a possibility?
Quoting Agustino
Red flag!
Quoting Agustino
I doubt it.
Quoting Agustino
No.
Do you think married people preferably shouldn't have children then, or what do you mean by red flag? :P
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Interesting position. It is indeed Biblical and in accordance with Scripture - although I hold to the opposite idea, which I also think has Biblical support and is in accordance to Scripture. Why do you think sex in and of itself doesn't have the possibility of being a moral activity? Do you concur with St. Paul that people should strive for complete celibacy if this is possible, and if so why?
I'm indulging myself and watching a soccer game. Will respond after I recover from my incoming heart attack :D
"Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love" -Proverbs 5:18-19 :)
It's possible for non-Christian religious folk to not go to hell?
But then you don't know if purgatory is real. If it isn't real then they must necessarily go to heaven because there's nowhere else for them to go. So it's possible for devout non-Christian religious folk to go to heaven, regardless of whether they follow the bible (because a Buddhist is hardly going to be following the bible their whole life, they have different scripture). It therefore also means that it's possible for someone to go to heaven without following the bible (you're in luck!). Because if devout non-Christian religious folk could go to heaven, and they do not follow the bible, then those who do not follow the bible could go to heaven. Or do they need to be devoutly religious regardless of religion?
If not, this then includes cancerous progressives, because they might be very much focusing on their inner life but not following the commands of the bible. Take Socrates for example. He might be going to heaven, according to your logic. You might meet him one day. Do you believe that?
I would ask to see you back this up with actual scriptural analysis, but I'm not in a position to verify it, not being a biblical scholar myself. You can breathe a sigh of relief.
So, again, what is the point of Christianity if it is unnecessary?
Quoting Agustino
See this is how I know you don't genuinely believe any of this Christianity nonsense. If you genuinely believed you might be going to hell, you'd be infinitely more terrified by that than by anything that can happen to you in this life. And some pretty awful things can happen to you. "Fear" would not begin to describe that feeling.
You have also neglected to comment on the fact that you are not a Christian, according to your own definitions:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
You are not a Christian, regardless of your "inner life". If you don't follow the teachings of the Bible, you're not a Christian. What do you have to say about that?
I certainly believe so - and so do the main Christian Churches. I believe Christianity is the highest religion - not that it's the only possible path up the mountain.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
That's your judgement, I'm just being honest and saying that I don't know.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Be careful. Buddhism isn't permissive of adultery, casual sex and the like. None of the major religions are. Neither were Stoics like Epictetus and Musonius Rufus. Neither was Epicurus funnily enough ;)
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
They need to be moral people. And that includes sexual morality.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Absolutely!
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
You can be assured that the Catholic Church for one does hold similar positions about virtuous men and women through history. Check what some Catholics think here: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1010299
(I do not participate on their forum as I am not a Catholic - but I have followed it for quite awhile)
In my religion, Eastern Orthodoxy, we believe likewise about virtuous men and women. We believe some to be saints actually.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
What is the point of Buddhism if it's not necessary? It's a structured path for connecting with a spiritual reality and living a moral life that guarantees you the greatest happiness both here on Earth and in the afterlife. It includes the same core morality as Christianity does. The same that Islam does. The same that Hinduism does. It's no different.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Maybe for you. For me no - because while I feel fear, I also feel God's justice, and I desire God's justice. I desire that God smite all the sinners, including me. And I don't feel worthy of God - why should I be in Heaven if I'm not worthy? That would be disgusting.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I do my best to follow the teachings of the Bible. I aspire to follow all the teachings. Maybe it's not in our power to reach up to God - but it is in our power to aspire to it.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I would be disappointed if I don't see him in there! And Musonius Rufus, and Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus, and so forth!
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I may not be one - but like Kierkegaard, I aspire to be one, and attempt to follow and live according to the teachings of my Bible. It's not as easy as you think to be a Christian....
Eric Trump apparently thinks that even Billy Bush is an alpha male >:O
More proof they let him abuse them. This corrupt society is built on abuse of men by women and women by men. People are so upset Trump abused them - I could give you hundreads of women who wish they were abused by Trump. Nothing more than lowly behaviour can be expected from both sides in such an immoral society. On the one hand people use their power like Trump to abuse women. On the other hand, women lust after Trump's power and they let him abuse them - to boast to their friends they did it with him. Shameful. Of course the feminazis only have a problem with Trump - not also with the women - who have also behaved shamefully. It is as shameful to lust after power and allow yourself to be abused for it - just as it is to use power to abuse the weak.
Uhmmm... How exactly is, for instance, sitting in an air plane and having the bad luck of having Trump next to you, shameful behaviour?
Also, this type of abuse derives from an overblown sense of entitlement and a degradation of women as property and subservient to men. The claim by you that these women wanted this only demonstrates your lack of empathy.
Well that's a loaded question isn't it? I doubt that the way you frame it is the way it actually happened.
I doubt he just started grabbing them without even saying a word. They must have been talking, and quite possibly the woman showed interest in him - and even allowed him to do it. The second video I posted gives the testimony of a British man who sat next to Trump and the woman in the plane, and did claim that she was interested in him - although he also claimed he saw no touching. I'm not saying all cases are like this. Just that quite a few are certainly like this. You're ignoring the fact that some women want to have sex with rich and powerful men as well - and are willing to do quite a lot to be able to - including let them grope them, etc. Some women later will also feel nice enjoying the spotlight that being a victim confers them. Maybe that's the only way they can appear on TV and get that kind of attention in their lives.
When I was young, as a teenager in Eastern Europe, I know for a fact that when an internationally famous man - say a famous footballer player - came for a match, and afterwards he showed up at some nightclub, many of the women would do ANYTHING for him. It's a power game for them (the women) as well. They're not just victims. I agree they're humiliating themselves by doing this - but it's what it is. They fully know that the person in question will use them - but then they can claim to their friends "Oh I got fucked by XX" - they feel superior - what kind of man they managed to get on with...
I also know people who've had sex with prostitutes and later the respective prostitute claimed she was raped, and got quite a bit of money off them. So it's not as simple as "Oh they're the victims, and the man is the abuser". In such "relationships" they are both objectifying and turning each other into victims - they are both abusing each other for power.
This is why I hate modern feminazis - it's not the peaceful feminism of getting votes for women, getting women to be respected, and so forth. It's actually trying to make the abuse of men by women - through different forms of sexual manipulation - moral. That's never gonna be moral. A woman purposefully going dressed like a whore to attract the attention of men - that's not her just being who she wants, she knows clearly what effect that will have - it's just a biological reaction. So while men shouldn't abuse her, catcall her, or anything of that sort even in that case - it doesn't also follow that she should purposefully get dressed in such a way as to excite strong (and potentially) uncontrollable passions in men. That's just not decent - it's simply a power game. She shouldn't be allowed to play that power game, nor should men be allowed to play the power game of catcalling her, insulting her, and so forth.
Quoting Benkei
So doesn't a woman doing anything to get in the pants of a rich and powerful man derive from a lust for power and fame? Doesn't that derive from the desire of having the rich and powerful man as her property? Doesn't she use her physical attractiveness, and her personality as weapons of seducing the said man? The claim that all these women are completely innocent just demonstrates your ignorance of their own faults and vices. That's the problem with progressive culture - it's so blind. It only sees one side of the story. Many of these women derive an extraordinary sense of self-importance by claiming Trump raped them - they basically can think of themselves as THE people who brought the rich and powerful Trump down in this election! No one succeeded - not Jeb Bush, not Ted Cruz, not hundreads of millions of dollars! That's a massive source of motivation. It's their way of "owning" Trump.
The feminazis and Marxists can say what they want. Women want as much as men to have the other as property - which basically means under their control. It's not one oppressor and the other oppressed - it's oppressor against oppressor. History is not class struggle - it's not the rich against the poor, the bourgeois against the proletariat - it's man against man - it's the history of oppressor against oppressor. That's why the Machiavellian "oppress or be oppressed" is true to a certain extent, but if we all followed that, then nothing will change - the world will keep being a hell-hole. A different sort of thinking is needed - one based on virtue and morality - to escape this game.
And this idea that women are somehow weak - that's just false. If we look at Cleopatra - she was quite possibly more powerful than Caesar! She certainly had Caesar at her finger tips... and Mark Antony even killed himself because he thought Cleopatra had died. She abused those men like nothing ever seen before - they were in her palm. She was a very big serpent - and a very dangerous one too. The Ancient Greek culture called love of women as inferior precisely because they were afraid of the power women could wield - and so they sought to train their men to resist it. Now men are trained to give IN to women way too easily - this loss of virtue is one of the reason why we get Trumps. On the other side, women are trained precisely to SEDUCE men - their sense of self-esteem is tied to their capacity to do so - and therefore they are trained to be todays Cleopatras and turn the Trumps on the fingers of their hands. Abuser vs abuser - nobody is "not-guilty" here.
And I might add that quite frequently the reason why the powerful abuse the weak is because the weak always seek to abuse the powerful. Many servants of the rich seek to steal, abuse, and deceive whenever they can. These people aren't innocent. So the rich get scared of them. That's why they become mean and harsh - to defend themselves. You yell at your servant when you catch them alone in your room - because you know that they may be looking for something to steal. Maybe not them - but one of the many servants will certainly look for this. So it's a defense mechanism the brutality. But the whole thing isn't about how do we give the servants better ways to abuse the rich - or how do we keep the rich capable of controlling the servants - but rather how do we escape this abuser-abuser relationship? If we remove the capacity of the rich to control their servants, then we turn the relationship into abuser-abused - where the rich become abused (progressivism). If we remove the capacity of the servants to abuse the rich completely - effectively turning them into slaves - then again we have an abuser-abused relationship (far-right ideology). So to escape Machiavelli one has to escape this loop. That is the politics of the future.
If you look at the discourse of many men who speak nastily about women (and there are a ton of them out there), you will notice a common feature: all of them at one point became disappointed because they were manipulated and abused by women. So they decided to take matters in their own hands - now they would manipulate the women and abuse them. The women would no longer toy with them, give them signals that they love them, then signals that they don't, and so forth. They would become masters - they would shag one woman, then the next - why? Because no woman is loyal - and they don't wanna be abused. So to avoid it, they themselves become the abusers. Machiavelli - abuse or be abused. That is almost the entire history of man.
Before the pussy grab remark video, the amount of animosity toward Trump at home across the entire globe (save in Russia it seems) was already staggering, and America in particular is perhaps nearing it's maximum potential emotional charge.
The way everyone instantly reacted to the hot mic video was predictable and understandable, and even Trump himself came out and apologized (has he ever done that before?). It's a fair point of character on which to base voting discrimination after-all.
But after Trump apologized for those remarks, it was as if the collective media and entranced viewership noticed a chink in Trump's until then impenetrable armor. The remarks began to be framed as "Trump admits to/advocates sexual assault". While this is a possible interpretation of what Trump said, It is hard to know if what Trump actually meant could amount to sexual assertiveness rather than actual sexual assault ("making the first move" so to speak, which is not necessarily without a prior phase where interest/consent can be reasonably discerned) and was just speaking in hyperbole.
Denigrating Trump for his 2005 remarks is one thing, but on the heels of this scandal of rhetoric, 9 or more specific allegations of sexual assault have emerged against Trump and have caught the main sails of the entire mainstream media. The court of public opinion has decided that he is a rapist deserving of nothing but scorn, incarceration, or worse. If the allegations are true, especially some of the more serious ones, then Trump does deserve jail time and we should all be thankful that we know now rather than after he potentially got elected, but if the allegations against Trump turn out to be false, then the presidential election will have been decided on something wholly separate from democracy.
In reality we're in a shittier situation than we were before, because the election has already been decided, meaning that Trump's candidacy really was a detrimental waste of time from the get go. Maybe because he's a rapist and he was not vetted by anyone with a brain before taking his campaign this far, or maybe because all it takes is crude "locker-room talk" and a few individuals willing to make an accusation that sends us so reliably into an emotional fervor. In future elections, how ready will the media and voting public be to take seriously any accusation of a sex crime that emerges before additional evidence is gathered?
Even though there's at this point seemingly a low probability that all these accusations are untrue, given the amount of emotional bias that already existed toward Trump, and that he was about to have a shot that the presidency, the incentive certainly would be there for individuals to make embellished accusations. In any case, the power that allegations of sex crimes have and the speed that they spread through and dominate media and public discourse has been very starkly demonstrated. If I was a campaign strategist in future elections, I would save sex scandals against potential political enemies, such as Trump's 2005 hot mic video, to use as magic bullets in the general election to destroy them.
TL;DR:Before we were stuck with either a giant douche or a turd sandwich, now since the giant douche turned out to be a giant rapist douche, our ability to choose between them as voters is basically meaningless. We're getting the turd sandwich.
The amount of animosity of the media, Hollywood and the academia (the three bastions of progressivism) to Trump is the same animosity cancer shows to chemotherapy. The progressives are so against Trump because Trump unmasks them - he unmasks their fakeness, their lies, and their immorality through himself. He is the product of their society - a society where your average Joe is a rapist like Trump. And your average woman is a power and fame hungry creature waiting to manipulate and abuse men through her sexuality. This is nothing but the cold truth. Now thanks to Trump we get to see it for the first time. We get to point at it - the mask has come off. The progressives can no longer go on pretending - even if Trump loses. Now everyone knows we have a BIG BIG problem - something that I had been saying for ages.
The freedom of the progressives is precisely the transformation of a certain social class - rich, white, heterosexual, male - into slaves - into objects of abuse. That's how the progressives propose to gain freedom for the homosexuals, for the women, for the blacks, for everyone else. By creating more war - that's how they'll achieve the noble end of freedom - by getting women to walk around dressed like sluts while men can't comment on it. Absurd.
I remember reading about Baden writing in some other thread how poor working class white males are having problems because of Tinder and the easy access females have to sex - that's why in the sex market they are starved. He writes all that without even being capable to see the abuse that is implied in there! It's like slave owners 200 years ago - that's what they want to make women into. And they call this freedom - how ridiculous! How utterly absurd. It's bad that men force women - but it's not bad when women force men. The philosophy of the LAST MEN as per Nietzsche - of the weak. We live in the times when weakness (vice) oppresses strength (virtue). The slut oppresses the decent man. The rapist oppresses the decent women.
I remember reading an article awhile ago written by a stay at home father whose wife suddenly said she wants to have sex with other men. And he was describing how difficult it is for him, and how painful it is but how he must be strong and let it happen, because women are free and he is a feminist, etc. etc. Then when she would return home she would cuddle next to him and insisted to tell him in details about it... ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? That's freedom? No - that's outrageous fucking slavery. That's like the slaves 200 years ago, who were happy with their chains "no we don't want to be free - we deserve being in these chains - these are our chains from birth! This is the place allocated to us by God". Now it is "Oh we deserve this because women are meant to be free, and we're just a stay at home father! This place has been allocated to us by the emancipation of women". This is disgusting - such women should be thrown in jail without question - deserving of the harshest of punishments. Such crimes scream to the Heavens for justice. Just like the crimes of the slave owners.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html
There's the article. I found it again. Fucking abuse. This world is filled with such scum today. Now of course I predict that the progressives will come "uh just another white male wanting to keep his dominance" - no just another white male not wanting to be a slave sir - a white male deserving of dignity and justice - like all people.
The only "true" Stoic is the Stoic Sage. But some of us are trying to be Stoics.
Just like I'm trying to be Christian :P
Agustino seems to think that things are moral or immoral on the basis of some authority, religion, the Bible or whatever. The truth is that causal sex is immoral because it burdens, obscures and/or injures the spirit.
On what fucking ground do you claim such stupid nonsense huh? One gets sick and tired at some point of this superficial and uncharitable attitude you display. What's written below, please tell me:
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Quoting Agustino
This is about the third thread in which you're not listening to what is being said to you, I'm sorry for having to be so blunt about it.
What I said is based on watching you in this thread and others, ad nauseum, promoting an authoritarian model of morality, it's based on nothing more nor less than that, Agustino.
No it's based precisely on NOT watching me because if you had watched me you'd see that's not what I was advocating as my previous post CLEARLY illustrates providing evidence from my other posts within this thread. So it's based on your prejudice. You should really be ashamed of yourself.
LOL your capacity for self-awareness is simply astounding Agustino!
:-}
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Then Agustino asks Heister:
Quoting Agustino
Then Heister responds:
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Then Agustino responds:
Quoting Agustino
Then Heister responds:
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Then Agustino responds:
Quoting Agustino
So to summarise, Agustino asks Heister if casual sex is moral apart from religion - because Heister said he believes morality exists outside of religion (Agustino was glad to hear that - he was actually curious how Heister's attitude towards sex is determined by non-religious grounds to compare with his non-religious grounds). Then Heister seems to be confused and doesn't answer as Agustino expected. So Agustino clarifies and states that HE - Heister - mentioned morality outside of religion, and so Agustino was inquiring what he thinks about it. Then Heister replies that there are many Christians who think you can't be moral or can't even discuss morality if you're not religious. Then Agustino says he's not one of those Christians - who think you can't be moral or discuss morality if you're not religious. So baby, how can you then say that Agustino seems to think things are moral or immoral based on religion, authority and the Bible when he has in fact stated that he is one of those Christians who believes people can be moral outside of religion, and that morality doesn't need religious beliefs to be discussed??? I tell you how - because you didn't bother to read everything carefully. You acted on your prejudice. But you baby have such a big ego you can't even admit that, and give a simple apology. You'll instead look to wiggle out of it as you do every single time when you're wrong - you never admit it. Either that, or you are as Terrapin said, an Aspie - I can't conclude anything else...
This is hilarious; I don't believe Terrapin ever said that; I think you actually claimed that and asked Terrapin to concur, unless I misremember.
But it's unimportant and has nothing to do with the issue in any case; but it does seem to demonstrate either your tendency to jump to conclusions about things you know nothing of; in this case about my psychology. Or else it shows your tendency to make disparaging remarks when you can't find any cogent arguments. This is shown yet again with your ridiculously childish and patronizing "baby".
Ho hum will the laughs ever cease.
:-d
So, to return to the issue at hand and just for the record if you genuinely don't think morality is founded on religion or authority, then what is it founded upon?
No, that is not true. Quite the contrary, as demonstrated by comparitive fact checking assessments. Where are you getting that from? Is it just your uninformed opinion or have you cherry picked? Trump is a far bigger liar.
Quoting Agustino
That is so messed up, Agustino. There are many more important matters, like inequality, gun control, tax evasion, foreign policy, healthcare, and the economy. You really ought to get your priorities straight. And a competent human being with their heart and mind in the right place is preferable to a baboon considerably lacking those qualities. Voting for the baboon because it appeals to this little chip on your shoulder would be irresponsible.
Yeah, but he's honest cos he don't 'really' ( ;).) pretend to be anything but a liar? :s
Yes, that seems to be his modus operandi. Such a person is called a reactionary, although he denies that he is one. This explains why he is so against progressivism, as if it is the devil incarnate. They're polar opposites.
This is nothing but giving a free pass for predatory sexual behaviour. Passions are not uncontrollable. It's not just a biological reaction. Men make a choice of action. Seeing "sexily dressed women (whatever that might be)" is not a communication of a desire to have sex. That's all an assumption on the part of the male in question-- "a woman has drawn my attention and interested me sexually, so she must be indicating a sexual interest in me. She is the sexual object there to fulfil my desire."
In reality, there are countless reasons for women to dress "sexy," which have nothing to do with wanting sex from men they encounter. Particular dress is social standard in certain contexts. There's questions of personal appearance-- some outfits are pleasing to individuals in ways others are, so are own for that reason, rather than to appear "sexy" to men.
Then there's the fact that intending to be "sexy" isn't actually a expression of desire to have sex. Just becasue someone is dressed in a way intending to bring about sexual desire from others, it doesn't mean they actually want to have sex with anyone. Wanting people to desire you sexually is distinct from desiring to have sex with someone.
To illustrate, a woman could strip off, rub her breasts in your face and lay down and spread her legs in front of you, and still not want to have sex with you. The measure of her desire to have sex is not her dress, it's not stripping off, it's not rubbing her breasts in your face and it not spreading her legs, but rather whether she actually desires to have sex. No matter how much desire she has inspired in you, no matter how many actions she has taken which "seem" to indicate she wants to have sex, you still need to know whether she wants sex. You can't just assume sex is wanted because of body, dress or even some sexual provocative behaviour.
The driving force here is not a lack of loyalty from women, it is jealousy on the part of men. They are driven mad by a sexually attractive woman would deny them what they desire, what they think they deserve for feeling sexually attracted to her. By being a sexually attractive women, they think her their possession who must want them*, else they would be stuck in a inconceivable world they could want women but not get them. So when a woman rejects them, all the blame falls on them for daring to be sexually desirable (but not available), rather than men realising their expectation (a sexually attractive woman= a women desiring to have sex) was rubbish in the first place.
And this is why your approach can only take us backwards in terms of sexual harassment and assault. It teaches men they are entailed to sex from anyone they find sexually attractive. Women are always considered sexual objects used for completing the man's image a sexual conquest, rather than people who get to decide whether or not they have sex.
Men fail to learn that sexually attractive women are part of the world, whether they draw attention to themselves or not, and that not getting not have sex with them, no matter how the women are dressed, no matter how many drinks he bought them, no matter how many expensive gifts he gave, no matter how "nice" he has been to them, no matter how much money or social status he has, is actually just.
*This includes you. The insistence that Trump's victims really "wanted" is a prime example of this thinking of women as the property of male sexual desire.
Agustino is into images. Fulfilling an image is what amounts to success for him, whether it be politics and relationships (e.g. particular social traditions). People and the world come secondary to whether or not someone meets an image. For him Trump represents a solution because he is an image of "Progressivism" destroyed. He stands up an attacks liberals and "PC" when no-one else within the mainstream gets close. Trumps's posturing represents an image of a society returned to traditions Agustino desires, a set of images which encapsulate a just society. It's an image of a society which functions by worshipping images, enough to make him think he has won a great victory.
He hates "Progressivism" so much because to doesn't deal in images. For "progressives" there is no image to meet, no scapegoat for the ills of the world. Whether we are talking about the classical liberal or the modern socially aware liberal, images have no role. There nothing to latch on to and obtain "perfection" within the imperfect world.
I wouldn't insult him by calling him a reactionary. With respect the issues I was discussing, he is far worse than that. He's ignorant of the world. He's just advocated the position which harms with respect to sexual harassment and sexual assault, which envisions both issues as a question of keeping women locked away from encounters with men, rather than tackling the heart of the issue: that some men think women are their sexual possessions by their mere existence. Truth gets buried beneath the images of manipulative woman and keeping women out of the sight of men. Sexual harassment and assault are returned to the inevitable action women must avoid, rather than being understood as an action men ought not take.
Based upon my experience I'm inclined towards the view that plenty of women (not all or even close to all) have no qualms about using their sexuality to their advantage. I doubt any woman is going to wear high heels and a skin tight dress, for instance, for purposes other than gaining a particular type of attention. That can't be comfortable or functional. What they do get - in addition to more tangible benefits - is external validation of their attractiveness and desirability. This in turn results in a significant boost to their sense of self-worth. Many women will readily admit this. Others will say they dress like that 'for themselves', but to me that just means they understandably want to feel good, and the easiest and most common route to doing so in our society is to be valued for your body and your looks generally. Makeup, plastic surgery, overpriced clothing, etc. are all hugely popular with a significant percentage of people, at least where I live, so we do seem fixated upon physical beauty and sexuality. We probably don't give it much explicit thought most of the time, but it's what our society deems valuable and this has been inculcated from an early age. We're bombarded with images which reinforce this sense of value and self-worth through the fostering of insecurities and corresponding ideals of success and attractiveness.
Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with this scenario, in which people are theoretically free to live and think as they wish, but let's be honest about it and admit that attractive women do at times objectify themselves. And also that men respond to this objectification.This is an obvious and undeniable point as I see it. And women do so because it can clearly result in significant advantages for them--or at least what they perceive to be advantages. That's the world we live in. That may very well be the way the world's always been. Take Melania Trump for example: would she be in the position she's in because of her brains, or her beautiful soul, or her other outstanding character traits? I doubt it. He married her because she's pretty and she married him, a narcissistic douchebag - one who's well beyond his physical prime - because it brought her quite a few benefits. So women, just like men, often do chase after power and money and fame by whatever means necessary.
It's this culture - with its lax morality and forging of such superficial relationships - that Agustino, to my understanding, feels is the problem. I don't think he's ever condoned aggressiveness towards women (regardless of how they're dressed) or rationalized such behavior in the way that Trump has. And while I despise his attempts to pitch Trump as the lesser of evils in this election, along with his seeming dismissal of 'progressivism' tout court, I do think he makes a relevant point or two on this issue: Donald Trump is a product of the dominant values of our society! That doesn't excuse his responsibility for his behavior entirely (or for that matter women who choose to objectify themselves), but it does shift a bit of the blame to larger social mores and values that are often seen as 'progressive' and liberating. These have been pushed through by some of the very people who are now up in arms over his disgusting and one-dimensional treatment of women.
This predicament is obviously not what feminists intended when they sought to disburden women from the shackles of domestic life, but perhaps more the unintended consequence of disparaging that life as somehow undignified. As if slavishly climbing the corporate ladder or otherwise trying to be like modern men is somehow indicative of a more worthwhile life. Men and women would both do well to reject these tacit assumptions and embody a much different set of values and self-interpretations. When that happens someone like Trump is no longer admired, but is instead seen as an embarrassment and an indictment of the society which gave rise to him. But I digress as usual...
Of course none of this means that men who are aroused by a woman's provocative dress or demeanor have the right to violate them in any way. It's a more nuanced position than that. Women will pick whom they want to have sexual relationships with, which is how it should be. But again, let's 'keep it real' and acknowledge the obvious: women are not always the innocent and passive recipients of unwelcome advances from men. Many of them WANT this reaction. They obviously don't want to open their legs for every guy who fawns after them, but they most definitely will for one with something to offer, and this 'something to offer' is typically not his warm and caring personality. I find this an indisputable fact of life in a commercial/consumer society, and would be curious as to where any person who disagrees with this blunt assessment lives. Maybe things are quite a bit different in more rural and conservative areas than where I've spent my entire life (Los Angeles).
For a man (or woman) to see and acknowledge this situation does not at all entail that they personally desire to have a sexual relationship with the particular tempter or temptress. In fact they can be saddened by such a situation in which both men and women are debased. But the point is that women often make themselves into what they feel men want, just as men try to make themselves into what they feel (attractive) women want. And these ideals are guided by the dominant values of the culture: Money. Physical attractiveness. Fame. Power. Donald Trump embodies these (three of them at least) and can thus pick from a slew of beautiful women who will gladly accommodate his desires as long as they receive something in return. Even something as fleeting as his momentary attention. Sad but true.
In an (my) ideal world people are modest, humble, simple, and concerned with much more than the physical attractiveness of their sexual partners. Nothing wrong with trying to make yourself attractive to your partner, but it shouldn't be the foundation of the relationship, and it should be kept more private than displayed in public. Again this is a nuanced position which avoids extremes of prudishness and vulgarity. In this idealized world we also age gracefully and don't feel the excessive need to fight against time in order to preserve our outward appearance for others. We're secure in our worth as human beings beyond what society - and marketers and advertisers - dictates we should feel about ourselves. Etc.
I have many disagreements with Agustino, but I'm beginning to share his opinion regarding the rottenness of our culture and its guiding values. I wouldn't want society to be what he wants it to be - there are a lot of GREAT things progressives have accomplished IMO - but I'm largely in agreement with him on this particular issue. I'm also open to other opinions, however, and may change my mind if presented with good evidence that our society, as it is, is conducive to the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of the individuals who compose it. I don't think it is, and this is merely one manifestation amongst many of its sickness.
No, it isn't a loaded question and in light of the various similar stories and the type of horror almost every woman has to go through and then having mysogynists like you suggest they are lying is exactly what creates rape culture. Congratulations, you're clearly part of that problem.
Yes good to see you failed to even address any of the points I made in those long paragraphs. Is that what you progressives are like - ignoring the arguments and just pointing fingers at strawmen?
I take it then that you don't know what you're quoting, or you're not reading it carefully enough. So let's go back:
What does this mean now? Does this mean giving a free pass to predatory sexual behaviour? Absolutely not. It actually means the contrary.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Ok so after you it's moral for her to do that right? It's moral for her to use her body to feel domination and power over another no? And the other should have no means of defence against this - no law on his side to for example call the police and to get that woman out of his face. Obviously she doesn't want to have sex - she wants to dominate me. That's a problem.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Oh so this wanting people to desire you sexually is a good and honorable desire no? It's good and honorable to want others to feel like they are your property, under the spell and control of your beauty right?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Then if they're not available why the hell do they want to be sexually desirable if not in order to have power and dominate?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Absolutely not.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No I actually advocated a position which tackles both of those problems at once, instead of only one of them like you.
Look it's very simple. If we are to have a civilised society, folks shouldn't abuse each other. That includes the man who wants to grab a woman because she sexually attracts him regardless of her desire, BUT very importantly, also includes the woman who purposefully dresses that way in order to dominate men and feel she has power over them by having them chase her endlessly and to no end. Both of those actions are shameful - and they ought to be stopped. You on the other hand think only one of those actions is shameful. You are biased towards the women. It's the truth - like all progressives, you only get part of the story right. For you women = good, men = bad. It's very clear.
Don't kid yourself. That is nothing but an enormous straw man concocted in your wild imagination. Quite astounding actually, even for you.
I think that that, particularly when coupled with the following:
Quoting Agustino
...is very telling. They give an insight into your thinking, and the way that you frame the debate, and indicate that you do so in this fallacious black-and-white, hero-villian way that puts you on the wrong footing from the get go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKFC9r2xzYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoJMT90N9nY
CROOKED HILLARY - and everyone knows it. Show me the time when a crowd will laugh when they hear "Donald Trump is honest" - you won't be able to.
And how then do you fail to realise that I agree and you're only shadow boxing a strawman? For example:
How is the bolded part not evidence of this for example?
Better for us to deal with Hillary for the next few years and do some intense soul-searching in the meantime. I think I'm tending towards the position that it'll be easier to reform progressivism with some 'culturally conservative' principles than to reform the Republican Party with progressive economic (and certain cultural!) principles. I truly believe that a large portion of people who currently align with these two parties are not content, and could be drawn into a new one combining - or better, transcending - the strengths of each. I'm preoccupied with this idea.
Because it's negated by the sentence following it (again) and claiming they acted "shamefully" before, or questioning their credibility, or claiming they are "abusers" and that nobody is "not guilty" (blaming the victim, real classy!) and to assume they are out to fuck rich and powerful men. So yeah, you don't have any idea what it means to have respect.
Your reply just confirms my suspicions. Your opinion is formed by public perception - actually, public [i]misconception[/I] when it comes to the depth of Hillary Clinton's lying, and especially with regards to the very large number of people deluded enough to believe that Hillary Clinton is the bigger liar - as well as propaganda, rather than the facts.
I don't know whether there has been a similar reaction to Trump's claims that he's honest, but I wouldn't be surprised if there has been.
I do recall the reaction of the audience when Trump claimed that he was a gentleman. They burst into laughter.
So what kind of message does Hillary give to our kids when you show her indisputable evidence of having done X and she just laughs and says she's never done X? Clearly a worse message no?
Quoting Erik
Oh how mistaken I think you are. Do you think those folks who have just grabbed the reigns of power, and now are looking to dominate using them will yield up their power willingly because of the "morality" of any agenda? The progressives are running a war - you think they really want their moral agenda? Of course not - they're running the most blatant power game in modern history - they're the new slave owners - on a multitude of issues. On the one we were talking about regarding men and women - they are the new slave owners who want women to have complete power over men, while men cannot do anything about what women do - where men have no form of protection. You think they'll let you change that? You think they'll give that up for "equality"? That's like asking the slave owner benefiting from his slaves to free them up!
Have you seen what Baden said regarding Tinder and the sexual market for working class white males? He said that poor working class white males get the short end of the stick, because sex is so easily available and women get to choose completely, and men have very little choice, and due to their poverty and lack of social status, these men get the short end of the stick. But he wasn't worried about it in the least - this according to him is progress - it's good that this is happening, that's what the working class white male deserves - in other words to become a slave. You must be able to see through all their empty talk to their intentions.
Okay so let's have a look and see if this really is the case - if the two sentences are contradictory.
Quoting Agustino
So clearly you must not be referring to the part in italics, but rather to the part in bold as the source of the negation. So let's see:
Men shouldn't abuse, catcall, or any such action even if women dress inappropriately VS women shouldn't dress inappropriately in order to excite strong and potentially uncontrollable passions in men. How do they negate each other? Those sentences are perfectly compatible. So do you think women should purposefully dress in order to provoke men and arouse their desires? Do you think this is moral - just talking about the women now not about men.
Quoting Benkei
So if a women purposefully dresses in such a way in order to subjugate the desires of other men to her persona she's not acting shamefully according to you?
Quoting Benkei
So women = good, and men = bad - all the time in rape/assault accusations, right? Why shouldn't we question their credibility with the same scrutiny that we question the credibility of men - it should be the same for both. What about innocent until proven guilty? That only applies when the women are the potential criminals no? When it's men - guilty until proven innocent right? It must be impossible that you're not capable of seeing such prejudices in your thinking. It really has to be.
You really don't get it do you?
Ok so let's look deeper. So you're telling me that it's not shameful to seek to have power and dominate others right? So if women were to seek to have power and dominate others through the way they dress - then that wouldn't make them shameful - right? Ok if that is so, then why would it be shameful when a man seeks to have power over women and calls them sluts when they dress inappropriately? I think both are shameful, but it surprises me how you only think one of them to be shameful.
Quoting Benkei
Did I say it was? No. So don't strawman.
Quoting Benkei
I suggest you look around yourself more. Preferably not through the prism of any biases, but rather to see how things really are regardless of what beliefs you already hold.
Young high school girls sure. But we're not discussing them at the moment. We're discussing grown-up women, some of them who don't do it merely to fit in. Do you not think such women exist? Do you think all women are good and all men are bad?
I definitely like women more, and are more prone to falling for their shit, but history seems to be silent on them since the first immortals.
They only sell so many kinds of things, and few people make their own totally different cloths than anyone else. Categorization is built right into the system of options. Freedom within restraints.
Yes, her denials, especially in that context, are awful and quite shocking, and cause mistrust and make her lose much credibility.
But they pale in comparison to Trump's numerous, blunt, adamant, repeated denials and affirmations of what is known to be demonstrably false. His admissions aren't necessarily any better than his denials (like when one of his false claims is put to him in question form, and he owns it, affirms it, goes on to defend it...), and he doesn't always - or even often, I think - switch his position; and, in some cases, when he has done so, it has taken him years, as with the birther thing - and he is still defensive about it! That went far beyond what is reasonable or appropriate.
So then, don't you think that women abusing men is also a serious issue, just like men abusing women is in its own right serious?
Quoting Wosret
The fact that our society forces women to find their self-esteem in their capacity to seduce men - including through the way they dress - is one of the issues that I have been speaking about. It's a (progressive) society which finds that such is good for women - that they dominate men.
Well I'm thinking more of a grassroots movement than you are, perhaps. Whatever the political and economic elites have in mind need not dominate the agenda. Now this may indeed be a naive approach - without the control of media, academia, etc - but the widespread discontent I mentioned, and which manifested itself in both Bernie Sanders (on the Left) and Donald Trump (on the Right), clearly shows that the power you're assuming the traditional shot callers have is a bit exaggerated.
I feel that politicians will respond pragmatically to popular movements and that these can have very humble origins. You seem to view change as largely a top-down affair involving traditional levers of power and influence whereas I see it just as equally as bottom-up. Rest assured, 'average' Americans are not horrible people who would idly sit back and allow (the caricature of) progressives to make a mockery of their values. Another thing you may not be aware of is that ethnic minorities in this country - increasingly the base of the Democrats - often hold some pretty conservative social values. A message which eschews racism and xenophobia and instead seeks some commonalities between the races and cultures which inhabit this country would surely resonate with them.
And regarding Baden (and most other progressives here), I respect him a great deal and think he'd be rather undogmatic and open-minded IF his hypothetical intellectual adversary didn't mock or ridicule his positions, but on the contrary tried to genuinely understand where they came from. Which is not a bad place I might add, at least not from what little I know of reading his posts through the years at both forums. I think I agree with him way more often than naught. I admittedly didn't see the thread you mentioned, but I can vehemently disagreeI with someone without demonizing them. And I hope they'd extend the same courtesy to me. I don't want this to be an encomia to Baden or our resident progressives, but they're mostly a pretty solid lot as far as I can tell - FAR superior to the Donald Trumps and Sarah Palins of the world - and maybe your constant hyperbole about them and their malicious intentions stops the conversation before it's even had a legitimate chance to get started. I sincerely think there's some common ground that should at least be explored.
I basically think your style can be extremely off-putting at times, and completely unbecoming of your intelligence and the thoughtful positions you frequently contribute. It's really an odd contrast. I also think you'd gain a lot more credibility if you refrained from doing silly things like referencing 'CROOKED Hillary' just as Trump does. It makes it seem like you're a propagandist who has some ulterior motive for attacking her beyond her progressivism. What that motive is remains a bit shrouded in mystery, although the fact that you may be a Russian nationalist causes one to speculate a bit. Truth before friendship, right?
Of course I do, I don't think everyone should be good, except for women, they get to be evil because I like them more, lol.
I guess you turned your hears off.
You obviously haven't been following my comments closely enough. I take it you didn't see, for example, my recent exchange with Wayfarer, in which I set the record straight on the depth of Hillary Clinton's lies? I have critised both extremes. He claimed, and I quote, that "the assertion that 'Hillary is dishonest' is dishonest" and that "'Lying Hillary' is a lie". I challenged and disputed those claims, and I provided him with evidence which shows that she has not been truthful [i]a heck of a lot[/I]. He then sensibly acknowledged the evidence and revised his position to better accord with it. You should do the same.
Trump's denials are not completely false. Take the Iraq war. It's a fact that Trump has shown concern about whether Iraq should be invaded very early on, even before the actual invasion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMgQAyZC-Vg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwaDSaoGU8
It's true he didn't take a strong stand on it either way - either fully endorsing invade or fully endorsing not invade. But that doesn't mean he was FOR the war in Iraq. But he has started to condemn it way before we actually decided to get out of Iraq. So the propaganda of the leftist media is just that propaganda. The right also engages in propaganda, such as he has always strongly condemned the war. That's also not true. That's why you must listen to both Crooked News Network and also Fox News :P .
Abusers vs. abusers. Nobody is not guilty.
Your words, not mine. Stop lying and twisting and turning and blaming me for your own inability to come up with a coherent argument.
Ok I understand your position.
Quoting Erik
I know they aren't, except that many Americans WANT that mockery to occur already.
Quoting Erik
Let's take for instance blacks. So you're saying that blacks are in agreement largely with socially conservative values no? So then why is their out of wedlock birth rate over 70%?
Quoting Erik
That may be true - but I ask them simple questions - like should women abuse men - and they don't answer. They say women never abuse men. How can one not be outraged when they refuse to recognize a lot of the abuse that is going on?
Quoting Erik
And I agree largely - but it's a fact that there's a point when one gets sick of dealing with progressive biases and being insulted for it repeatedly. Just look how time after time they're all shadow-boxing against some strawman of me. Look right above this post for example... takes a statement entirely out of context so that it matches with his idea of what I should be saying in his mind. Unbelievable.
Quoting Erik
Right so Eastern Europe is cowering in fear because of Russia's growing influence and the West's inability to do anything about it, and I'm a Russian nationalist? >:O This is pure American (Cold War style) propaganda. It seems that the American mind still cannot let go of this Us against Russia thing. Either with us, or with Russia. The world is much richer than just that. I'm not a Russian nationalist. It's true that I admire some things about the Russians - others I don't. But why shouldn't one look at what's good in Russia? Should we close our eyes to them because they're Russian, and we Westerners hate Russians?
That's probably the funniest thing I've read in a long time. :-!
In what context did I say that? Let me remind you...
Quoting Agustino
So do you think that women trained to seduce men - like Cleopatra seduced Caesar and Mark Antony - aren't abusers? Do you think that men like Trump aren't abusers? So if you think both of these are abusers, then does it not follow that in that context, it is abuser vs abuser - and that nobody is "not guilty" there?
Really I'm getting very tired of you strawmanning me.
I find this incredibly ridiculous. I struggle to get my head around this attitude, because it is alien to me. We're talking about a style of dressing here, for crying out loud. If a short skirt and some red lipstick has that much power and domination over you, then you must be pretty weak, and have some serious issues.
And that is in no way comparable to - or excuses - being abusive, sexist, judgemental, and so on, to such women.
And there's so much wrong with just that one paragraph it's rather sad you don't even have an inkling of what's wrong with it. The world would be a much better place for women if men like you would all die off rather sooner than later.
Women aren't trained to seduce men, their self-esteem isn't tied to their capacity to do so and even if it were so, then obviously their responsibility in this respect is zero because they're "made" that way by (progressive) society. The problem here is your assumptions and ridiculous generalisation and the equivocation of the women abused by Trump with your silly generalisations.
Some women are expected by their surroundings to act in the way that you describe and it's prevalent among conservative surroundings that objectify women. It's thanks to progressivism women moved away from living under the joke of their husbands and with it came sexual liberation - the right for women to choose how to dress when and where and with whom to have sex. Yes, that includes women's ability to instigate a relationship or make advances - horror of horrors. But there's nothing shameful about it, because it's nothing else than men (try to) do
In the end, a woman doesn't seduce me, I let her seduce me. I'm not some unwilling subject in those exchanges and I'm certainly not a victim of it or abused if it happens. It's called taking responsibility for your own actions as a man.
Did I say it was? Both should be condemned. That's what I've said.
Just like all Trump voters are a basket of deplorables right? You progressives must all be the same - liars and coverup artists.
Quoting Benkei
Excuse me - another strawman. I never claimed (all) the women abused by Trump were like this. So stop lying.
Quoting Benkei
Another loaded statement.
Quoting Benkei
So women living with their husbands is bad - we need the sexual liberation of promiscuity and the abuse that comes with it right? That's your vision of the world? That's disgusting.
Quoting Benkei
Ehmm did I say they shouldn't have a right to this? >:O I said even if they dress inappropriately, they shouldn't be disrespected, insulted, etc.
Quoting Benkei
Yeah - so because men try to dominate women, women should try to dominate men. Bravo! You get the progressive award for honesty, thanks for admitting that. I guess you'll be happy to hear then that you'll never get rid of the Trumps. The more women abuse men, the more men there will be abusing women - and the converse also holds true by the way before you start saying some shit about me being a misogynist.
Quoting Benkei
Oh yeah - it's not abuse if you let them right? Just like it's not abuse if they let Donald J. Trump right? You can't be serious. All that the slave has to do is agree with his chains, then his condition ceases to be slavery right? How cute...
Heh, I'm about as far from an American nationalist or advocate of American interests (being the sole consideration of foreign policy) as one could be. Beyond questioning who actually benefits from such national partisanship, I don't believe we should be in the habit of meddling in the affairs of other nations or regions at the expense of the inhabitants of these lands - mainly for economic gain - unless absolutely necessary (e.g. ISIS - but even here our meddling may have made a significant contribution to its development and support).
I would rather seek out some common goals which I feel would benefit all people on this planet. So go ahead and accuse me of wishful thinking or naivety, but please don't assume I'm taken in by my own country's blatant and self-serving propaganda. We clearly need to get our own house in order before even considering exporting our model abroad. I'd make the friendly recommendation that others do the same. My only real 'enemy' is the narrow and shortsighted mindset which underlies and reinforces both the internal decadence and the external power politics that my country manifests. Nietzsche's notion of the Cold Monster in TSZ is one that really resonates with me.
[i]Some[/I] of Trump's denials [i]are[/I] completely false. A relatively large number in fact, and a greater number than Clinton.
You have picked a single example. Yet, if we look at one of the fact checking sites (and there are plenty of other such sites with similar findings), PolitiFact, and go to the file on Donald Trump, we can see that out of the statements of his that they examined, 102 (34%) of them have been found to be false (as opposed to e.g. half-true), and 52 (18%) of them are categorised as pants on fire.
But yes, of course there is propaganda and false claims on both sides. That's what happens in the run up to an election.
I'm not sure - as I said I don't trust these sites - neither what they say about Trump nor about Clinton. I prefer to look at things for myself and verify the facts myself. From doing this the impression I've got at least is that Clinton is certainly a bigger liar than Trump, but Trump is a better trickster.
I appreciate your thoughts on this. There are conservatives on the forums too that I respect despite disagreements, and I'm willing to engage constructively with them. I've said before that thoughtful progressives have more in common with thoughful conservatives than either do with thoughtless people of whatever political persuasion (and not every position I hold would be considered progressive, or at least exclusively so, anyway - it's just for me one of the less objectionable labels out there.). I find it impossible to understand Agustino's approach to this discussion though. It seems utterly self-defeating.
I naturally agree, although I think the real-politik will always prevail, and nations will always seek their own interest above mutual interests. I think conflicts between nations are unavoidable. I expect the US to do everything it can to screw Russia over for example. I expect the Russians to do everything they can to screw the US over. But I would like if their people realised this, and understood that it's just a political game that is being played out and nothing more.
Quoting Baden
Such as?
Quoting Baden
I'm trying to make a point, not win a debate and public approval. We're not doing politics here, we're doing philosophy. The whole idea is to have ideas fight - not to get stuck up at the personal levels, as many of my opponents in this thread have.
been treated unfairly by the media vis-a-vis Hillary. Not suggesting he should be treated better, but rather that she should also be sharply condemned for her dishonesty and her cynical manipulation of the electorate. I don't think he's entirely delusional about that; she definitley gets preferential treatment and free passes on many things that he and other Republicans would be vilified for. So yes, there's corruption and those who enable it on both sides.
Good let's now see if any of the progressives will ever agree to this. I doubt it.
The fact that you think you are doing philosophy illustrates my point. Just to take a minor example, can you explain what is philosophical either in style or substance about your continued references to "CROOKED HILLARY"?
>:O I'm just having a good laugh. I think Trump actually gave her a good name. She is Crooked. My question is why do you get stuck on the fact that I call her Crooked instead of dealing with the content of my ideas?
Oh jeez. So, you're part of this populist right-wing trend epitomised by Michael Gove's declaration that we've had enough of experts? Well, this is something beyond the scope of your personal preference.
Quoting Agustino
And that means absolutely nothing in the broader scheme of things. Why should anyone care about your impression when there is stronger evidence which refutes it?
The latest revelations about Hillary training homeless, mentally ill, and assorted thugs, to start riots at Trump rallies (they claim Chicago as a major success), renders "Crooked Hillary" quite appropriate.
By the way, have you read about this in the media?
No I'm in the right-wing which says that men should inform themselves and be on top of the facts themselves. I'm part of the right-wing which distrusts authority and bowing down your head to them. I'm part of the right-wing which says that your own head is good enough to think through these issues and you don't need some higher up to tell you what to do.
Quoting Sapientia
Then don't care about it. You have to make your own decision - I just told you what I think based on my knowledge.
Yeah, we have had it over here with our mainstream media and their treatment of Jeremy Corbyn. But I'm much less sympathetic when the victim is Trump.
Quoting Agustino
Ah, proved you wrong again. :P
You're doing a lot of things, but philosophy isn't one of them.
I haven't done an analysis, but it would be hardly surprising if Trump got treated worse by the media than Hillary. He has railed against them from the beginning as being corrupt, disgusting, the lowest of the low etc. And he's been using that line deliberately to set himself up as the anti-media candidate because he knows this appeals to his anti-establishment base. He's got a lot of mileage out of it so far (it helped propel him to the Republican nomination because ironically the media lapped it all up and gave him way more coverage than the other candidates) but you can't have it both ways. You can't be against the media and then expect them to be on your side. So, I don't see anything unfair about it. He runs on being the enemy of the media, and some (though not all) of them happily accept their role. Also, naturally enough, large media companies (excepting for obvious reasons Fox News) will tend to prefer the stability of the known (Clinton) to the unknown (Trump) and this may filter through to their coverage. But really it's not the media that condemns Trump but his own words and actions.
No amongst having a good laugh I'm actually also doing philosophy. Just that you get stuck up on "Crooked" and not on anything else.
Quoting Baden
Again giving excuses for them. The media should be unbiased. The real truth is that they do have a bias to progressivism. And Trump unmasks this. Exactly as I've been saying all along. People think the media is free when it's really not - it's in the binds of progressives. But because of Trump we can all see that - the mask goes off.
Have you heard of WikiLeaks? It's there in black-and-white. The Podesta leaks show media collusion with the Clinton campaign to an extraordinary level. Some of it might even be criminal.
Quoting Sapientia
Just like Clinton would do anything to get elected, it seems you'd do anything to prove me wrong >:O - see, maybe I wasn't far off when I said progressives are all the same ;)
If you have a reliable source for this, do share. But I'm not claiming the media is not biased towards Hillary anyway. I'm claiming it doesn't matter to me for the reasons outlined above. I judge Trump (as I do Hillary) on his own words and actions not what talking heads say about him.
This is a big problem for democracy. It has already been revealed that the DNC is corrupt; Bernie didn't stand a chance. But with Wall St. the Media, the FBI in Clinton's pocket (i.e. Soros's pocket), democracy has no chance.
If Trump had caused the riots in Chicago with paid agitators, it would be over for him.
And what you've said is still wrong. They're not comparable in that way. There is nothing condemnable about dressing that way. The problem is entirely one-sided, and of your own perception, attitude, judgement, prejudices, weak will, and so on, and of others like you.
Do you for some odd reason think I would be surprised by this?
Of course the media are biased in lots of different ways. They are businesses selling products. Particularly in the U.S. I'm all for greater control and oversight but you won't find many conservatives supporting that call.
And the Clintons have amassed a $300million fortune by selling a product called "US government policy".
What's your point, tom? Do I have to explain yet again to a conservative that I'm not here to defend the Clintons?
I thought that guy in the video looked familiar: known liar and fraud James Edward O'Keefe III. Please give us a break with this, and find some real sources. We've already seen O'Keefe's "exposes," and they're heaping piles of bullshit. (And right-wingers complain about Hillary being deceitful?)
But again your post proves me right. I made a collection of arguments about how Trump used his anti-media persona to his advantage and was actually advantaged initially by it (getting much more coverage than other candidates); and I then went on to state that current biases against him (if there any) would be unsurprising in the context of his attitude. But you respond not with any kind of rebuttal or analysis or even acknowledgement of my arguments, but rather the unsupported assertion that I am giving excuses for the media followed by more unsupported assertions about how the media is in the binds of progressives. Where is the philosophy that you keep contending you are doing in your response above? Show it to me.
It's all corroborated by the WikiLeaks release of the Podesta emails. And it seems that Scott Foval was fired within hour of the video release.
Just quote the relevant parts of the relevant emails then.
So what? It doesn't mean that O'Keefe isn't a liar, or that the videos were presented in an honest manner. The Obama administration fired Shirley Sherrod on the basis of Andrew Breitbart's (God rest his soul) fraudulent video without realizing what a lying scumbag Breitbart was, and how he'd deliberately shown the videos out of context. Sometimes people get tossed under the bus in the name of maintaining a good image.
As opposed to Trump, who got rich by a grant from his rich daddy (money which he's largely squandered due to his being terrible at what he does), and stiffing contractors and construction workers, and then filing for bankruptcy multiple times in order to run from his fiduciary obligations. (Let's not forget the occasional bulldozing of people's homes in order to build his garish properties.)
This is probably why he now earns a living by whoring out his name to fraudulent "universities," steaks, bottled water, and whatever else he thinks his reality show fans will scarf up.
Why wouldn't one defend the Clintons? A person needn't be perfect in order to defend them (and God knows the Clintons aren't perfect). Bill and Hillary have spent decades in public service, with Hillary fighting for the rights of women and the poor, trying to extend healthcare to the uninsured, and the Clinton Foundation has worked for years on solving problems facing the global poor and fighting disease. That work is admirable, and I would say they've done more good than harm.
The vast bulk of the allegations thrown against them are bullshit, which is why the right must constantly invent fake scandals in order to attack Hillary (e.g. Benghazi, Whitewater, her "laughing at a rape victim"...the list goes on).
I have reasons why I wouldn't, but I don't want to side-track this discussion into a debate about the Clintons. That's the strategy of Trump supporters who want to detract from their man's failings. If someone wants to start a discussion on the Clintons, I'll probably join in and give my reasons there.
The methodology you have endorsed above doesn't discriminate enough, and, as a result, it is more prone to error than the one that I am endorsing, which is not the same as your misrepresentation of it.
Yes, people (not just men) should inform themselves and be on top of the facts, but not to the extent that they disregard important evidence merely because it is from an authority, due to some irrational distrust of authorities. Nor should they discount it on the basis that it hasn't been gathered by themselves individually, but instead involved a team of researchers.
We don't live in some ideal world where romantic notions that your own head is good enough to think through these issues is born out by the facts. The harsh reality is that the way in which vast swaths of the electorate will vote will have been based in no small part on emotion, fallacy, and the lies they've fallen for.
Indeed, I don't care about your impression enough to misplace it above stronger evidence, and I would advise others not to similarly misplace it. But I do care enough to object to it. It's not so much about what you know about such and such, but what you knowingly disregard or overemphasise. I won't condone cherry picking and willful ignorance on a philosophy forum of all places. These are fallacies to be avoided, not virtues to romanticise.
No but there is certainly something condemnable about dressing that way in order to have power and dominate over men. There's a difference there.
Maybe because you would use it to shut down conservative outposts?
Well, I appreciate your confidence in my abilities but my power does not quite extend so far.
No, there isn't, because in reality, it isn't this sinister-sounding thing that you're making it out to be. There is nothing wrong with either men or women using items of clothing, cosmetics, toiletries, and such, to make themselves more attractive to potential sexual partners - which, by the way, needn't be a member of the opposite sex.
The overarching problem here is, again, in part, due to your whole conception of morality and your own presumed authority, or as spokesperson for some presumed higher authority. You will no doubt frame this as something other than personal disapproval. In your mind, you are a knight defending morality.
What [i]is[/I] sinister is the unspoken implications of your comment. Like that these men you talk about as if they're victims aren't themselves to blame.
I'm not really doing anything. You just keep shooting yourself in the foot by making unwarranted assumptions about your interlocutors. Perhaps erring on the side of caution wouldn't go amiss? :-x
Rights of women, are you freakin kidding me?
Both Clinton and Trump are against Obama Care as it currently stands. Both want to reform it. Trump was to only Republican candidate for universal healthcare provision.
As for the Clinton foundation, have you been living under a rock?
http://www.latintimes.com/clinton-foundation-what-happened-39-billion-were-supposed-go-haiti-401841
I agree with your point regarding Trump using the media. Obviously. You fail to see a pscyhological point about Trump as well, which I will address soon - why Trump must operate this way. It's not because he's Crooked like Hillary and will do anything to get elected - his motivation is different. I disagree that one should expect the media to be biased just because someone criticises them - that's not what one should expect because the media shouldn't be biased in the first place.
Quoting Erik
I think you misunderstand the psychology of great men - not saying Trump is a great man in the sense of being a moral man, please note that. But he is a great man in a different sense. He's great in the same way Alexander was great. He displays one quality that probably all other current politicians in the West lack - magnanimity of spirit. He doesn't care what lowly good-for-nothings think about him - he can care less. A man like him is a lone wolf. He doesn't need anyone's approval - nor does he want it. What he wants is that his greatness compels the approval of others. Not that they freely give it - but rather the same way when one stares at a beautiful painting and is forced to say "this is beautiful" so too when one looks at him, one is forced to say "Trump is great". That's what he wants - that's what he's always wanted. Such men treat their lives as pieces of art. Even if he loses the election - it doesn't matter to him - that's not proof that he's not great, like other common men would think. A great man will try again and again and will never stop trying to show his greatness - his capacity to undertake difficult actions and pull through with them. Because the source of his greatness isn't how the external world looks - it's not that he's in the ditch - the source of his greatness is that unshakable belief that he has inside of him that he is great and he can do great things, and the more failures and obstacles there are in his path the better it is because the greater he will be once he overcomes them. The more people oppose him, the more they hate him, the greater he will be once he overcomes them.
Right now he's very smart. The election is rigged he says. He has probably about 40% of the American electorate, with about 20-25% being TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP fans who would always vote for him. His people are very loyal - because they admire his greatness, which compels them to do so. He's distancing from the Republican Party because he knows the DNC will try to not let him run again in the future. He wants his electorate to remain with him - so that he will continue with the rigging of the election afterwards the same way he continued with the birther issue. He will keep his voters happy by throwing stones and bombarding Crooked after she wins. Then next election comes and the Republicans say "Not again Mr. Trump - u ain't running for us!" and he says "Fair game, then I will run as an independent and take 30% of your electorate so that you lose the election - you want that to happen? No. Then you let me run in your ballot, and if I lose I certify that I won't run as an independent". Boom. He's up there once again - he's preparing the way.
Trump will throw an election - as he has in fact done many times - in order to keep his greatness. He will not be a lowly good for nothing just to get elected. He will fuck over Paul Ryan even if this means he'll lose the election. Why? Because the more obstacles there are against him, the better. He doesn't want to win more than he wants to be great. Crooked wants to win - she doesn't care about being great, she has no character. She identifies being great with winning.
That's why I could never vote for Hillary, but I could vote for Trump. He at least has something I admire - despite the many things I hate. Hillary is just a good for nothing - a spineless liar who has no principles and no beliefs, and will do anything to get what she wants. A chameleon. That's not only evil - it is also shameful. At least Trump is great in his actions - regardless of whether they're moral or not. That is a great quality. He pushes through with them even if he knows they'll hurt him.
Same with someone like Casanova. They may be evil. But they show a virtue that has nothing to do with either good or evil: magnanimity. We can admire them even while criticising them, and disagreeing with them. They overcome insurmountable obstacles. As can someone who is good but is great - say Marcus Aurelius, or Socrates. Many men we can admire for their virtue, but not for their greatness. We can't admire anyone for their sin though unless they also have greatness. Obviously the most complete men are people like Marcus Aurelius and Socrates (who have both magnanimity and virtue) - but men like Alexander the Great, Trump, Casanova, rise up above the crowds through their one virtue: magnanimity.
The progressives destroy magnanimity - for both good and evil. The sins that they promote with regards to sexual immorality are petty and disgusting. Such sins only small men and women commit or are interested by - men and women with small souls. The sort of benevolence they promote is also petty and disgusting. Say this. Vote that. Protest. Go naked on the street. Nothing more. They don't promote the real fight against injustice, the way people like Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Ghandi did. Can you imagine, Martin Luther saying "I have a dream" - what awesomeness, what power, goodness and conviction emanated from the man to move his brothers and sisters to rise up against vice - to awaken the fires of their passions. These latter people are great souls. But the progressive spirit is destructive of greatness, whether this is in people like Alexander or in people like Ghandi. What we see instead is the emphasis on "facts", on "experts", on all sorts of nonsense. Not the emphasis on greatness of soul.
Many women come to him and do inappropriate stuff - this is expected because they are scum, who like Crooked, would do anything in order to get what they want. There's a lot of scum in this world - and some of that scum is women too, not only men. Now before some silly progressive misinterprets this for the 9th time - this doesn't mean that Trump has never abused women himself. He probably has. But this isn't to turn a blind eye to what women also do.
Hah! Wonderful woman Melania to discipline those little twats who try to seduce her husband. That's what a strong woman does.
I can't quite believe what Trump has achieved. Even the Republican party is against him, and the media is biased beyond belief.
At risk of the charge of being melodramatic, my view is that if Trump loses, democracy is over in US, at least until some sort of catastrophe happens. The pay-for-play culture is so entrenched and established, that vested interests will remain in control for a generation. The plan for the future that Soros has may be a good one, but I don't know what it is and there is no way of voting him out.
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15201
And, despite the claims of CNN, it is not illegal to look at Wikileaks.
I want to see you achieve half of what Trump has achieved, and then come speak to me about that comparison ;) .
Yes. What is an aspiring Stoic or Christian to do, though, in such a situation? Which megalomaniac is a more intelligent choice than the other? For my part, I can't choose Trump, who is now claiming that if he doesn't win it will be because of fraud and encouraging others to react accordingly--thereby undermining the process itself for purely selfish reasons. That seems to me to be the most irresponsible claim made by this serially irresponsible and seriously ignorant man, and for my part it in itself renders him the more objectionable, the greater evil.
I respect and honour that choice - not voting for Trump. Trump certainly has a lot of negative aspects.
However, voting for Clinton is a no-no from the start. She's a lying snake, who would do anything to get what she wants. Anything. She will be anyone, she will say anything, she will do anything. Trump at least has an ounce of self-respect - he will only accept becoming president as Trump - not as anyone else - hence why he's very willing to do quite a few actions which harm his chance of being elected. I'd rather vote for such a person even if they are evil, then vote for a snivelling and spineless hysteric who is a lesser evil. That's if one is to vote at all. One must have some decency and self-respect - Trump is evil, but Hillary is scum. I don't want to give a license to scum in order to avoid some evil.
But I do highly respect folks who would choose to abstain from the voting.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
But he is showing greatness of spirit in so doing. He's acting like Caesar in crossing the Rubicon (of course he lacks Caesar's intelligence, physical and political capabilities) - he's ignoring the consequences and going with his vision all the way. That's something of value - even if his vision is crooked, selfish, and so forth. And I might add that we're missing that in the last 60-70 years - greatness of spirit.
If you aren't a US citizen, why do you give a flip?
Because Trump is the first politician in the Western world in the past 50 years who displays one of the fundamental virtues that we're missing - greatness of spirit, courage to go at it all alone and fight for one's vision regardless of whether the vision is good or bad. Daring. Fighting and winning against all odds. All our other leaders are cowards - they really don't do shit (or better said they do only what is popular - only what they know will certainly get them elected - they have no real passions or beliefs - their beliefs are whatever is popular and will get them in office). We've become shielded by political correctness, by bureaucrats, by experts - someone else is thinking for us. People have no more passions - they have small passions, to go on Tinder, to shag their neighbour to do some pesky little and insignificant thing. Trump is the first one in recent history with a real passion and energy to move the world, to actually do something big and move everything he has to move to achieve it. That's refreshing to see - I thought the Western world was all but dead, with no passion or courage for anything, until I saw him dare. I thought everyone left was like Crooked - doing anything to earn another dollar, with no grander ambitions than merely hold office, be among "high society", remain (or become) amongst the powerful and so forth. It's refreshing to see someone dare to be different.
There are two kinds of situation:
1. We're facing a crisis of a sort we've never known before. Nobody knows what to do because we're in uncharted waters. Our best bet is to unify behind a leader even if that leader is as clueless as we are. The saying for it "Do something even if it's wrong." It means there are times when paralysis will definitely kill you, so loosen up and allow yourself to try something. You at least give yourself a chance that way.
2. We're facing problems that have unfolded over an extended period. It's stuff we've been fighting for years. It's already come up that we failed to listen to people who demonstrated that they did know what to do (as with the derivative market crash and maybe the invasion of Iraq.) It's time for a leader who has mastery over information management and decision making.
Which sort of situation are we in? Mostly 2. We might be presently sliding toward 1, but we aren't there now.
Which one is Donald Trump best suited for? Neither one, unfortunately. He is refreshing, as you say. But he's also incredibly divisive. So he's no good for situation 1. He's no good for situation 2 because he's just uninformed. Face it: he's fun to watch. That's about it.
What about Hillary Clinton? In her long years of political service, I don't think she's proved herself for either role. But the alternative to her on the Democratic ticket was Sanders. Pfft. Hillary would break Bernie Sanders in half. Ready or not, it has to be her.
I don't think so. I think he understands it's quite possible that he'll lose the election and seeks to convince people that if he loses it can only be due to fraud. That's not showing "greatness of spirit" in my book. It's shows meanness of spirit, a spiteful spirit, intent on undermining not only the authority and legitimacy of the victor but the election process itself if he's unsuccessful.
I'll paraphrase into street lingo: Trump is a whiny bitch.
As I said before yes. But he's setting himself up for the future - in that he shows greatness of spirit. First he alienates the Republican Party because he wants his voters to remain Trump supporters, not Republicans. He wants to steal that electorate from the Republican Party. Why? Because he knows that the RNC will not allow him to run as a Republican the next time. So what has he got to do? He has to say that the elections were rigged. Then, the same way he carried the birther movement, he will carry the rigged movement. This will be formed of the supporters he has - roughly 20-25% of the American electorate will remain loyal to him (he has a group of supporters which already have a lot of loyalty to him). These people will be kept as his supporters as he continues throwing stones after Hillary and talking about the corruption of the system. Then next elections come, the Republicans don't want to let him run, and he threatens he'll run as an independent. The Republican politicians are greedy - anything to ensure they don't lose - and Trump running as an independent will ensure that they will in fact lose in the general election. By now they think Trump is discredited and hasn't got much chance in their primaries anyway. They let him run for the sake of not starting a war with him, so long as they make him agree not to run as an independent if he fails in the Republican race. Then Trump wins the Republican primary. Clinton is even more discredited and tarnished than she is now - the American people will never want another Clinton. Trump becomes President. This I think is his plan.
Great leaders are always great leaders regardless of the situation. Mastery over information and decision making isn't what a great leader is. That's what people under him have to do. This is precisely the problem - we have forgotten what leadership means. A leader shouldn't have to care how to get from A to B. A leader isn't a technician giving you the how. The President isn't there to be an engineer to say this is HOW we'll get to B. Only that we must get to B (and what that B is - that's what a leader needs to decide on. What is the B we need to get to? And all the information in the world can't decide that. All the big heads can't decide that. The big heads are always confused. They don't know what to do). That's what he has to do. He must direct everyone towards getting to B. Motivate and convince them to get to B. What makes someone a great leader is that they carve their own path - they are not servants to an electorate that's already existing. They have a vision, and they create the electorate to implement it. A great leader can be either moral or immoral - good or evil. Gandhi is a great leader - he effectively created the electorate - he got the people to follow his vision of a free India. Hitler on the other side (on the evil side) is also a great leader. He also carved his own path and got the German people to follow.
This is precisely why I am interested in Trump. He's reminding us of what great leaders actually have to do. Put others to work to implement a certain vision. Not be some guys with big heads which they can barely hold up. That's for Professors and experts. Not for leaders. A leader's job is vision - that's why morality - if we actually get back to having real leaders as opposed to fakes - will be the determining factor - because the people will have to choose between different visions and goals. Until now all the goals were similar. Which vision is good and which is evil? All the visions for the US were similar until now. No big differences. This time it's different.
I might add that ALL great leaders are divisive. It's impossible to lead without dividing. If you lead without dividing, then you have no principles. You're a crook - like Hillary. She wants to please everyone just so she can get into that Oval Office. You have no integrity then. So a leader is always someone who brings a sword - who brings discord and who upsets the status quo. We have a very absurd idea about what a leader is. A leader isn't an asinus which says "Uhhhhh what do the people want? They want X. Okay time to figure out how to give them X!" - that's not a leader. That's an idiot (it sounds more like his people are leading him than him leading the people). A real leader says "What should the people want? X. Time to get them to want X then".
Both these people were products of their times. In another century, Ghandi would have ended up dead in a ditch somewhere. Born a little earlier or later, maybe Hitler would have made it into art school and poured his bile out onto canvases.
Quoting Agustino
You missed the 1980's when the "networking leader" was all the rage.
Quoting Agustino
You're setting yourself up for a massive disappointment. There is something cool about the USA. It doesn't usually show up in politics, in my experience.
You fail to recognise that in another century Ghandi wouldn't have attempted to achieve the same goal he had now. The capacity of the leader is precisely in choosing a goal and then getting people to follow. This greatly depends on their character - good character = good goal. Evil character = evil goal.
And yeah of course Ghandi could have ended up dead - his cause not succesful. But that's not necessarily failure as a leader - so long as he rallied up the people and got them to pursue a vision, that's success in the art of leading.
Quoting Mongrel
I don't care about these a prioris that big heads think about leadership. I look in history and I see what leaders have actually done. The fact of the matter is that people who actually follow the big heads - they don't look anything like the real leaders we know from history. So there must be a problem with the big heads guiding them.
Quoting Mongrel
What do you mean?
Where's the recognition of your mistake? Seems like you're wiggling out of it again by not responding to what is actually being asked of you.
Quoting John
Morality is like the roof of a house, where the walls are duty and their foundation is love. The walls without the foundation cannot stand, and the roof without either the foundation or the walls cannot stand ;)
OK, so the love is in the person. If the person really loves then their acts will be moral, no? So where does duty come into it? If you do something you want to do (out of love) it is not a matter of duty and it will be moral, or else the love was not genuine.
Quoting Agustino
:-O >:O
I think your arrogance might just be matched by your naivete... which means it's a sure bet that Uncle Sam wants you. Have you checked into whether you can fast-track to citizenship with military service?
Quoting Agustino
No, I am not freakin kidding you (lemme guess: here comes the part where you rant about how Hillary supposedly laughed at a rape victim and sought to discredit the women who accused her husband of unwanted sexual advances).
Yes, many people want to improve the ACA (some, like the House Republicans, in the classic definition of insanity, vote dozens to times to repeal it without hope of doing so). One cannot expect a program that massive to work perfectly from its initial roll-out.
As for Trump's position on healthcare, the last I heard, he was to replace the ACA with "something terrific." As for a "universal healthcare provision," you'll have to elaborate on exactly what that means, because I have no idea.
More bullshit from the right-wing blogosphere. The Clinton Foundation has an "A" rating from Charity Watch, and a 95% rating from Charity Navigator. And, contrary to the baloney you linked to here, a bit more than 10% of its funds go to charity...the real figure is closer to 88%. Please leave the Fox News echo chamber and join reality.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
Pretty much. Women don't have to do anything in particular for men to feel that way. In a society where women are not locked away, where they are free to participate in society and draw attention, care, time and resources from others, men will notice beautiful women all the time.
If we are expecting women not to be noticed by men, we are asking them to withdraw from public life, to have no interest in gaining from the wider community, to care not for their public status (e.g. job, friends, whether they are likeable to a stranger) and to cover themselves head to toe, so they aren't recognisable as an individual who draws attention. To be someone, and wanting to be someone, who is sexually desirable to others is part of existing in public life, by the mere fact of people paying attention to you, sharing their time and resources, as is part of loving in the public sphere.
Many men feel "under the spell and control of beauty" by nothing more than a woman walking down the street in jeans and t-shirt. Or the smiling waitress with a presentable casual uniform. Or the woman in a blouse and slacks working in the office. Merely by living and interacting with others, women are people who are desired. Unless women get locked away, this is something men are going to have to deal with.
No... those specific actions would constitute sexual harassment and sexual assault. My point was not that they were moral, but that you were equivocating a woman's appearance and behaviour with her desire to have sex. You say she wants to dominate you here, but previously your arguments were saying she wanted to have sex because of how she appeared or behaved. So afraid of women having power, of being something other than the sexual possession of men, you turn their acts (whether abuse or not) into justification of male dominance.
If you made a pass at that woman or even raped her, it would be justified because she really "wanted it." You wouldn't really be engaged in rape or sexual harassment because her appearance or behaviour indicated she really wanted your sexual attention.
This is how you read the Trump scenario. You didn't accept those women had been abused. You said the must want Trump sexual attention because they were around him, seeking the power, resources or social prestige he might provide. You say Trump's actions are shameful, but that's not what you argue. You insisted the women really wanted his sexual attention (meaning, you know, he hasn't violated consent and the women haven't been abused by being acted on sexual against their will). Deep down you agree with him about women being the sexual objects of men.
Because many states which register to men as "sexually desirable" are a mere fact of their existence or are somehow related to other social relations, personal expression, maintaining employment, being interesting to others, etc.,etc. It's not fucking hard, Agustino. You just have to take a moment and think about what matters to women, what she needs to do to maintain social relations, be someone who lives with others etc., etc.
You know, I'm starting to think that democracy ain't all it's cracked up to be. After all, democracy has got those of us here in the U.K. lumped with an awful right-wing government since 2010 and for years to come, and it has brought about impending Brexit.
On the contrary, if Trump were to win, then [i]that[/I] would be the catastrophe, and in so many ways, including internationally.
I don't know about that. I don't think the executive branch can actually start a trade war. Otherwise, Trump is isolationist. Most of the attempts of the US to be involved in the world lately have resulted in all-out grade-A catastrophe.. so maybe a little isolationism would give the world a break.
Yes, indeed. This is what he is known for. Sore loser. After all, he gained the political spotlight years ago when he tried to undermine the authority and legitimacy of Barack Obama on dubious grounds, then persisted in doing so for years, and remains defensive, and even proud about it, to this very day.
What dubious grounds are these?
I don't know that much about it, to be honest. But I know that he has made it clear that he will use whatever power he has to take the stick approach, rather than the carrot approach. Especially when it comes to China. And that strikes me as concerning, in that it seems risky and potentially damaging and counterproductive.
Quoting Mongrel
Yes, and that is a stance I find more agreeable.
But what I actually had in mind was the reactions of, for example, important political figures in the U.K., where I'm from. And judging by their own reactions, it is clear that they see a Trump presidency as troubling, in stark contrast to a Clinton presidency, which doesn't even get brought up. Questions like "What would you do if Trump became president?" and "Would Trump becoming president effect the special relationship?" have been frequently raised, and the answers given are quite telling.
Yea. We'd have to invent a word for the new level of Stupid where the US provokes China while the US national debt is $19 trillion.
Quoting Sapientia
I'm not sure what they're seeing. Maybe his attitude toward Russia? Anyway.. nobody wants to say it out loud because it might impact voter turnout, but it doesn't look like Trump has a snowball's chance.
I have to say I am working up a little emotion over voting for the first female president of my country. Really? Woo Hoo!
I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. It's a discredited conspiracy theory, and this is a philosophy forum with standards that ought to be maintained.
'Take a deep dive into the more than 10,000 Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks, and here's what you'll learn: Hillary Clinton is a careful, methodical, tightly-controlled politician. Her jokes, her tweets and even her purported ad libs are often scripted by aides. She hates to apologise, even when she admits she's done something wrong, like keeping emails on a home server. She's a progressive, but not an ideologue; she yearns for "rational, moderate voices" on both sides. Above all, she's a pragmatist who's willing to compromise - and to have "both a public and a private position" if that's what it takes to make a deal.
Fainted yet?"
I am also excited by the possibility of electing the first female president. It's interesting how little discussion that's merited, either because that fact has been so overshadowed by Trump's antics, or because people are just so used to Hillary that it barely registers: she's just part of the political furniture by this point.
What is the discredited conspiracy theory that Trump initiated?
I was thinking about that. Maybe it has to slip up on us in order for it to happen at all. Next in line: President Ramirez or whoever...
Or President Muhammad somebody.
I'm sure Sapienta can point this out as well but go back to what he wrote and try to find the verb "initiate" or any synonym of it in there.
And I think your general incoherence may just be matched by your lack of judgement... which means it's a sure as hell bet that the closest psychiatric ward wants you. Have you checked into whether they have a free spot for you in there - because I tell you this last post of yours makes no sense at all.
"If the person really loves then their acts will be moral" - no. Have I said that? I said that for morality to be the case their intention must be loving, and their action based on duty. The fact that "if the person really loves then their acts will be moral" is your thinking, not mine. You asked me on what morality is based - so I told you what it is based for me. That's my framework. Now it seems you want to question the framework, but if so, then you should make this clear instead of presupposing another framework in order to question it.
It's possible that someone is loving and yet still fails to be moral. Love is no guarantee of morality in and by itself. There's many instances of this because we live under time. Love is destroyed and replaced under time. The only thing which can keep it constant and eternal is duty. Say I love my friend today. What ensures I'll love them tomorrow as well, and my love for them will not be momentarily replaced by my love for a dog, such that I end up doing something good for the dog and bad for my friend? Duty. Duty guarantees eternity to love sub specie durationis.
>:O these firsts don't mean anything. Look at Obama. First black President. Did things improve for blacks? For many things haven't improved at all - they still face problems of poverty, lack of education and rampant crime. But now folks get to tell them "Why are you complaining - look you have a black President!" These firsts are just getting yourself drunk on nothing, they're actually more unhelpful than helpful.
Crooked is trying to stop WikiLeaks at the moment and shut them up - because she knows they got her. Ecuador cut Assange's internet for the release. Interesting to see you fight for the money interests.
He's referring to the birther issue - that Barrack Hussein Obama wasn't US born.
You're not reading the question. Let's go over it again.
The question isn't about the fact that by the mere fact of their existence women will attract attention, care, time and resources. It's not about the fact that by their mere living in society they will attract attention to themselves. The question is whether they should WANT that. I can attract all the attention in the world when I go in the street. It doesn't follow that I should actively seek to do that - ie want it. It can be just another fact of my existence, just like my shadow. So I'm asking you whether it's honorable to WANT to be desired sexually. Whether it's honorable to want others to feel like they are your property, and under the spell and control of your beauty?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No actually I haven't. That's what you think I was thinking. It's clearly not what I have written.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope - my arguments never said she wants to have sex. Only that she wants to dominate. Having sex may or may not be part of that.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Not at all. I actually claimed the contrary.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I insist that SOME of the women wanted his sexual attention - and even if they wanted it, they were still abused. Just wanting something or consenting to it doesn't mean you're not abused.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I'm getting sick and tired of you not reading what I'm writting and asking you. Again you answered an entirely different question, an answer with which of course I agree! I doubt you'll ever find a person who doesn't agree. But my question was different. it's not whether states of women are "sexually desirable" or necessary for social relations, etc.
It's whether they WANT to be sexually desirable or not. She can be the most beautiful women and go out there normally, and attract the attention of all the men she passes by - sure. But that has nothing to do with whether she actually wants to do this. Someone can be unconcerned about whether they are sexually desirable or not. Or someone can WANT to be sexually desirable. So I'm asking you why, if she's not available, would she WANT to be sexually desirable - not why she may be sexually desirable nonetheless because of other factors that are, let's say, not up to her.
Now I recall our debate on Brexit and my willingness to accept any (legal) route to ignore the referendum result. ;)
Typical progressives :P - when things don't go their way, they're willing to do anything to make them go that way. And by the way, I'm not a sympathiser of Brexit at all.
Anything? I said any legal route.
;) What difference would that make if you were the one making the laws?
Are you referring to the contents of this email from 2008?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7860
Well, none. I don't really understand what you're driving at. The whole point of a legislature is to make the laws that are believed to be best.
Regarding your interest in having Trump try to overturn laws/Supreme Court decisions on abortion, or undermine progressivism in general, isn't that just a case of "when things don't go [my] way, [I'm] willing to do anything to make them go that way".
Que? I didn't delete any posts. Still waiting on your link to open btw. The proxy-server ain't responding...
EDIT: It finally opened. I fail to see the relevance.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7860
Sure, but I freely admit there is an objective standard which the law should try to approximate to, so I see myself as being justified in doing whatever is necessary to the law in order to make it approximate that standard. But as far as I know, you're not a moral absolutist, so you're not playing the same game as I'm playing. If you are a moral absolutist, then that's good - then we're on a levelled playing field, but you should at least say so :)
So the claim appears to be that Trump has tried to exploit the issue of Obama's true heritage, first raised by the Clinton campaign in 2007.
Except he didn't.
He did exploit it, not during this election, but previously.
And arguably for a good while during this election cycle, which cycle tends to start about 3 years before elections in the USA.
That wasn't the claim though: After all, he gained the political spotlight years ago when he tried to undermine the authority and legitimacy of Barack Obama on dubious grounds, then persisted in doing so for years, and remains defensive, and even proud about it, to this very day.
Nothing in this email thread suggests that Podesta et al believed that Obama was foreign-born, or that they proposed to say so for political gain.
The most relevant item of "oppo research" in that list is:
* 7 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh)'s father was a Muslim and Obama grew up among Muslims in the world's most populous Islamic country.
Nothing about that says he was born in a foreign country, not Hawaii, or that he lied about his birth status (by the way, "the most populous Islamic country" refers to Indonesia, not Kenya; birthers generally claim that he was born in the latter).
EDIT: by the way, I don't deny that some of Hillary's language in the 2008 primaries veered dangerously close to being a dog whistle, trying to paint Obama as "the other," especially in her messages geared towards the working class, relatively uneducated whites who supported her over Obama in that primary. This, however, is a far cry from claiming that Hillary "began" the birth movement (as Trump claims in that press conference video) or that she tacitly or explicitly suggested that Obama wasn't born in the United States.
You don't read the news much, do you? Trump was virtually obsessed with the birther issue for some time (prior to his running for President), even claiming that he sent his private investigators to Hawaii, and that they were discovering "tremendous things which you wouldn't believe" (or something to that effect).
Of course, this was just another lie on his part, as nothing whatsoever came of this "investigation." Indeed, it's questionable whether he even sent anyone to Hawaii in the first place.
Given that I'm not a moral absolutist/objectivist, I don't believe that there's any absolute/objective standard for me to violate.
I take it all back. Trump was clearly exploiting the birther issue in 2011, and it is obvious why.
I would say that you fail to understand love.
Yes, it brought that back to my mind, too. I'm still not willing to condone going that far, but that doesn't mean that I can't bemoan the situation we're in. It'd have to get [i]a lot[/I] worse for me to adopt your position.
It was nice to see them put more effort into making it seem like they were actually discussing politics (more so thanks to Hillary's efforts), and even though trump was his usual self, something about him seemed a bit more palatable, a kind of je ne sais quoi.
That said, aside from Hillary's single foible when she continued to talk over the moderator toward the end (probably due to rehearsing talking through Trumps constant interruptions and one-liners), I think she performed a bit better.
Not to say I think it was a passable debate or informative beyond a study into ancient Greek style (even worse than) rhetoric and sophistry, it's just that this late in the circus you really start to become invested in whose shit stains are slightly less visible.
Anyway, hopefully, he will cause the Republican party such an enormous loss come November that they'll tar and feather him and dump him outside the city limits.
Trump wants to overthrow Roe v Wade - excellent. Crooked argues like all progressives "it's too late to do that, we've gone too far" >:O
I must confess I didn't watch more than snippets of the debate (I generally don't watch political debates, as it's pointless to do so IMO). I understand that Trump refused to state unequivocally that he would accept the outcome of the election, which is yet another indication that he's a would-be authoritarian strongman. I can't wait to see how his supporters will contort themselves to continue to defend the indefensible in light of this travesty.
Their performance was close - too close to call I'd say. Trump is shorter on the facts compared to Crooked, but his goals for America are better than hers. He's clearly less capable intellectually than she is, and simply is a very different kind of man when it comes to this.
BAHAHAHA!
(Yes, I'm aware of the Orwellian nature of my desktop pop-ups)...