Does it really matter?

[Netti-Netti]

It matters, but it's a matter of degree. The response format is forced choice/binary and somewhat artificial.

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

. The response format is forced choice/binary and somewhat artificial.

How so?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

How so?

If it's a matter of degree, the nuance gets lost with a forced choice question.

Also, as stated the question is too general. The kinds of issues also factor into how people see things.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

How so?

If you want to participate in the poll, you are forced into one of only two (the binary part) choices offered. 'One-size-fits-all' in either black or white really doesn't fit most, much less 'all.'

<edit>
Netti-Netti and I were posting at the same time!

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

If it's a matter of degree, the nuance gets lost with a forced choice question.

Also, as stated the question is too general. The kinds of issues also factor into how people see things.

Okay, well, Netti, here's a thought.

Go run a similar one to this, word it as you wish, and give poll options as you see how they should be done.

Fair?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste,

i didn't vote either for the reasons mentioned previously. in subsequent polls you could add "none of the above, see explanation" or something along those lines to give folks a manner to participate when the choices offered do not reflect their views.

in response to the OP i would tend to say that it is relative to the situation and context under discussion. if said leader is advocating a course of action yet is unwilling to engage in it as well, my confidence in this course of action is somewhat curtailed.

of course it gets down to what a public figure is and how said public figures have no private lives since everything they do is considered newsworthy. somewhat tangential to the thread such considerations have led me to the conclusion that fame isn't worth it as i tend to value my privacy.

metta,

~v

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

Do we sometimes expect just too much from world leaders and politicians?

Surely it is enough if one actually delivered on pledges and promises made, without having this unrealistic expectation that in their private life, they should live like saints, and be above the sort of things that many members of the public engage in?

Does it really matter if a world leader left his wife?

Does it really matter if he had an affair?

Does it really matter if he had engaged in homosexual sex?

Does it really matter if he even decides to pay for sex, as long as it is legal to do so in the given place?

I am not convinced that it does matter.

You may take the view that someone of 'integrity' would do such things, therefore, one that did is not 'fit' to be a leader.

Surely this is hypocrtical nonsense.

I would not be surprised if there are people who post on here who have done at least one of those things listed above, and that is fair enough.

What is not fair enough, is for you to have done so, then, somehow you would spit the dummy out if it turned out that Obama, for example, had done the same thing!

Even a world leader is entitled to a private life, and as long as he or she is commiting no crime, then I do not really see what business it is of anyone's what he gets up to.

Agree/disagree..?

No hypocrisy here. All is forgiven. Hillary will be welcomed into the Obama administration and kept abreast of all current political conditions. An expression of true love.

One More Question... | 44 | washingtonpost.com

[enlightenment]

Tell ya what..?

I often wish the wives of PM's and President's would remain out of the limelight, a bit more.

Whenever they speak, they often make fools of themselves, and the President/PM.

Example - Mrs Blair. Dear oh dear. What a red face for Tony, she was, at times.

Babs Bush - Not a shining example of a good diplomatic tongue, let alone more than one brain cell in her head, if her rants are a measure of her intelligence..

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

Do we sometimes expect just too much from world leaders and politicians?

Surely it is enough if one actually delivered on pledges and promises made, without having this unrealistic expectation that in their private life, they should live like saints, and be above the sort of things that many members of the public engage in?

Does it really matter if a world leader left his wife?

Does it really matter if he had an affair?

Does it really matter if he had engaged in homosexual sex?

Does it really matter if he even decides to pay for sex, as long as it is legal to do so in the given place?

I am not convinced that it does matter.

You may take the view that someone of 'integrity' would do such things, therefore, one that did is not 'fit' to be a leader.

Surely this is hypocrtical nonsense.

I would not be surprised if there are people who post on here who have done at least one of those things listed above, and that is fair enough.

What is not fair enough, is for you to have done so, then, somehow you would spit the dummy out if it turned out that Obama, for example, had done the same thing!

Even a world leader is entitled to a private life, and as long as he or she is commiting no crime, then I do not really see what business it is of anyone's what he gets up to.

Agree/disagree..?

It matters, and I vote with my feet.

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

It matters, and I vote with my feet.

Why so..?

If what they do is really about their own personal life, and if it is not illegal, then I do not even see what it has to do with anyone, and what our personal life would have to do with any leader..?

Surely it matters more that they are talented and capable, than to aspire to some ever moving set of values, values which we ourselves often cannot achieve.

Are we seeking a skilled leader here, or some sort of moral guardian, something to replace the influence of a church leader..?

Surely it is the former, in which case, it is irrelevant what he does in his personal life, etc.

In 2008, favour would be shown to a married candidate over one who was single.

Imagine that.

Nothing to do with ability, just that one small detail.

We are as influenced to select leaders as we are for buying shampoo or biscuits, we care not for substance, it's all suface the counts..

*shrugs*

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

Why so..?

If what they do is really about their own personal life, and if it is not illegal, then I do not even see what it has to do with anyone, and what our personal life would have to do with any leader..?

Surely it matters more that they are talented and capable, than to aspire to some ever moving set of values, values which we ourselves often cannot achieve.

Are we seeking a skilled leader here, or some sort of moral guardian, something to replace the influence of a church leader..?

Surely it is the former, in which case, it is irrelevant what he does in his personal life, etc.

In 2008, favour would be shown to a married candidate over one who was single.

Imagine that.

Nothing to do with ability, just that one small detail.

We are as influenced to select leaders as we are for buying shampoo or biscuits, we care not for substance, it's all suface the counts..

*shrugs*

First, to presume that values are relative for everyone is a mistake. Most folk have values that are fixed, and are the bedrock on which their lives are based. Second, legal and moral are not always in conjunction with each other. When we vote for someone to represent us, we (most), expect that representitive to present the embodiment of the people that elected him/her, in a positive light to the rest of the world.

We the people may not be able to achieve the standards we aspire to, but the fact is we "Aspire", and expect our leaders to represent that fact. That is why we place them in positions of authority over us, because we trust they will walk the path before man that we aspire to walk, as a society.

Finally, to many of society, a man/woman is placed in a position of authority because "God" allowed such. For God is the God of pastors and presidents alike...

So, it all boils down the the inherent trust society places in its leadership.

Case in point: Your tax dollars pay my salary. Your acknolwedgement allows me to wear the uniform of our country's services, which in short means that I am priviliged and honor bound to represent you as part of society, in the best possible light, to the rest of the world. I deliberately go out and save lives, stop drugs, enforce society's laws...everything that is compassionate, noble, good and just to the social morality.

Now, imagine yourself reading the morning news, and you come upon an article wherein I, a known military officer who is supposed to embody all that is the best of our country (while off duty), got drunk, drove a car and killed a family of four, or where I comitted adultry with a married woman, destroying the fabric of her family, and jading the eyes of the town she lived in...

Your first reaction would be shock and disappointment. Your second might be anger, because I failed you in your expectations of me, and I made our country look hypocritical, because of my personal hypocracy. Your third might be mistrust of others who wear the same uniform I do, in general.

So, you see, once placed in a position of authority and position, it is expected that I conduct myself with respect and honor for the sake of myself, and those I represent, because I become more than just me...I am in a sense, us...

v/r

Q

[greymare]

Applauds. Well said, Q, well said.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Now, imagine yourself reading the morning news, and you come upon an article wherein I, a known military officer who is supposed to embody all that is the best of our country (while off duty), got drunk, drove a car and killed a family of four, or where I comitted adultry with a married woman, destroying the fabric of her family, and jading the eyes of the town she lived in...

Oh that all our military officers held themselves to the same standard!

30 years ago maybe even less in this country, drinking, whoring and the military were commonly linked. On base MPs called to what today would be called domestic violence where typically the law says if they see any kind of wound (black eye, bruising, cut etc) the other party is headed to jail period...years ago the MP would tell the soldier to straighten out the problem and insure they aren't called again...

Times have changed...in some circles.

Funny enough, in our country our congressman and senators have basically made themselves immune to many of the laws that we common citizens have to follow...

[Tao_Equus]

Like a casual, or sustained, fling matters a hoot to ability! Very many of us are capable of illicit sex to some degree, indeed many find it the most exciting kind of all. And as a species it is for whatever biological reason something hard-wired into us. It, the act of illicit sexual congress, is bound to become more prevalent in the successful, like politicians, because power and 'fit' genes both appeal to and encourage the basic animal in us.

Leadership, as exemplified in the scary allegiance to a man or concept that Q espouses in his last post, never has and never will be immune to the opportunity for a quicky with some of the 'fittest' genes around. Indeed I have at some point seen study results that hint strongly that politicians are generally highly sexed.

What I dislike most though is this linking of sexual behaviour to 'god-given' morality. All morality is human and human alone. When Catholic Cardinals concede that it was the "minority of children in its (the catholic church) care that were not victims of abuse" it says everything about trying to use religion as the vehicle to judge or guide. It has no moral, ethical nor established method to make any claim. Quite the reverse. The voices of innumerable cardinals and bishops across Africa and Latin America especially, but beyond there too and echoed quietly in Rome, is that condoms are evil and far from being preventative may even cause HIV. The moral evil of promoting such profoundly fraudulent lies to a poorly educated population reveals clearly that churches are those least equipped to being rational when it come to the human sexual condition.

I do not know how many times I have now witnessed the disintegration of relationships in a dark and ugly confusion of jealousy that started without cause and in itself created the monster it most feared. Two human beings consent to sex in a private congress because their biology and self asks it of them. Whatever circumstances brought the two together to that point is irrelevant the need they share is a mutual one, and nothing to do with anyone else. DNA profiling proves that people are about 90% monogamous. That does not mean 90% of the people are always either faithful or abstinent though. Sex is a private act that is complicated by the competing desires of the sexes and it is nobody's business but theirs that are immediately involved. Monica wanted to nail the president, he suggested she have a cigar instead. It was a private thing, it was play, a frivolous moment of privacy between them. And such things happen millions of times a day across the planet. Trying to stop it is both stupid and futile. All the laws, all the ethics and moralities in the world will not stop our very nature.

Religions use various strategies of control over supposed sexual morality for the control of the people. It is a weapon or instrument by which to beat and humiliate a cultural psyche and more often than not to treat 50% of people, women, as second class objects of sin. That great perversity of human dignity, the confessional box, or the way in which muslims are meant to seek the advice of the local hadithophile*, that whole idea of sharing sex with religious morality is such a powerful beast. For sex is not just one of our greatest joys, it can be our greatest fear. And often, as in the rampant paedophilia of the Catholic church or the 40 minute marraige/divorce packages sold by some imams there is every likelihood that any churchman spouting his sermon is as likely guilty as anybody, only more so given his position of opportunity. It does not surprise me to learn so many 'holy' men are paedoes. The whole power structure of the abrahamics is built on exactly the kind of framework conducive to the usually smart and persistant sicko. I see that as no accident. So in many cases it is the morally bankrupt preaching from on high.

But as I said we fear sex. Jealousy and competition are as powerful a motivator toward fear as anything. And so Hilary was not devestated by what bill was doing in the oval office, because she likes and understands power and sex too. He got a BJ, big deal.
But the Republicans, whipping up the ethically bankrupt Christian Right addicted to a TV diet of sex and religion, had to force him to a confession that was nobodys business but his. A show trial for those already hooked on a diet of perversely hypocritical preachers and actors/actresses perpetually locked in some infidelity. No other president has yet publically had sex to determine his virtue but I bet close to every other one had their secrets.

Most of all sex sells.....and is a brilliant smokescreen. It is only ever used to make capital. It is the peoples main source of both titilation and feigned disgust and so of course politicians will use it if and when they can to dominate on their agenda. Adultery is not ilegal inthe US and it should never have been raised as an issue. Being sexually active however carries risk and my ideals do not prevent them. If you get caught with your pants down there is usually trouble.



tao




" (got to claim copyright on that word!!)

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Like a casual, or sustained, fling matters a hoot to ability! Very many of us are capable of illicit sex to some degree, indeed many find it the most exciting kind of all. And as a species it is for whatever biological reason something hard-wired into us.

Again, I think it speaks to character and truthfullness, guess I'm some kinda old school prude.

If you can't keep it in your pants, if that excitement leads you to break your marriage vows, how can I expect you to keep your vows to my country?? I'm sure the adrenaline rush of espionage and thrill of subterfuge far exceeds a little strange.

I love the hard wired into us. "Honey, I'm a man, what do you expect?"