Is Weiner a Winner?Follow

Ah. I see the problem. You're interpreting the word "normal" to mean "common". The fact that something happens, even frequently, does not make it "normal". Normal refers to something being in line with social norms, not whether it happens frequently. So, as I said earlier, the fact that there's an uproar about this is a strong clue that his behavior is not "normal".


I also think the more relevant term to use here is "acceptable". If he were not running for public office, what he's doing would be much more acceptable. But given that he is, it's not.



Sure. But when one directly prevents the other, one has to choose between them. If we were talking about a runway model being unable to get work because she can't stop eating fattening foods and has become overweight, only a complete moron would argue that she should be allowed to pursue both of her desires without consequence, or that it's unfair for the modeling world to not allow overweight women to be runway models. Um... That's the way things are. Fair or not, she knew that going in, and knew the consequences of her choice, and made that choice. In exactly the same way that Weiner has made choices here and thus can't really complain about or be surprised at the negative effect on his chosen career.



Let me restate that you're speculating about his motivations for what he's been doing. But regardless, you are correct that his desires (whatever they may be) are problematic for public office. This is exactly what I said earlier. He's more than free to pursue a different career path where what he's doing might not be such a problem. Which is why his choice to try to run for public office while still engaging in the same behavior that caused him to resign last time is so strange. It's like he doesn't understand that one is a problem for the other, despite what should have been a very clear indication of this the last time around.




I disagree that those rules are arbitrary. They are rules that societies adopt over time because when they are violated (especially in their leaders) there are negative outcomes. I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate about how social morals evolve, but they often don't evolve via purely arbitrary reasons.



Nope. I wont. Because I disagree with your premise that these are arbitrary reasons. I happen to think that there are very good reasons for why a society might think that a married man who sends sexually explicit messages and pictures to multiple women (who are not his wife) is probably not someone we should entrust with public office.

Doubtful

Can't he just come out and say God forgave him his indiscretions like all the other politicians did? Or is it only republicans that are allowed to have God on their side when caught ******** the poolboy while proclaiming the evils of teh buttsecks?

As to the actual texts, the problem isn't their content. Most voters don't care. The problem is the marked inability to exercise impulse control over a trivial aspect of his life knowing his entire political future was likely at stake. That's significant. Anyone elected to be Mayor of NYC will be a megalomaniacal sociopath, but MOST of them will also have the self control to not actually build 100 foot golden statues of themselves no matter how warranted they find it. Actions like this make you wonder about Senior Danger. It also seriously calls into question his ability to judge when corruption can take place without it becoming obviously exposed in short order. The Mayor of NYC needs to be able to effectively deal sotto voce with dozens if not hundreds of factions, and not knowing how to cover ones tracks is completely unacceptable.

Yet you did. Guess it was easier to focus on than why adulterers, alcoholics, and drug addicts are more understandable than exhibitionists.

Well. I guess I was wrong all along then!

This is funny as hell:








Um... You're the one who argued specifically that it was common (first quote). I argued that just because something happens frequently (ie: is "common:), does not mean it's "normal" (ie: socially accepted). You then got terribly confused and forgot what the hell you were saying until now you're arguing the exact opposite of what started out saying.



Lol. 180 degree change there buddy. Gotta love that one.



Er. Then why did you argue that it was Ok because it was common? That was your "go to" argument for why we shouldn't be upset about what Weiner was doing. If you want to start over and make an argument for why what he was doing falls within acceptable social norms, then make an argument.

But can you refrain from talking about frequency then? Now that we're both on board that one doesn't determine the other.

Gold star for effort, I guess?

Proofreading doesn't work when you only see what you want to see.

But is it normal.

The marriage thing is a big problem (although it would be a bigger deal if he was an evangelical Christian whose entire identity was built around being on higher moral ground than anyone else.) Single guys are given a lot more slack for indiscretions than married ones, even if the women (or men) they are being indiscreet with are themselves married. (In that case, the married partner is given more blame for the violation.) Just boys being boys, sowing wild oats, etc. Adding a marriage partner into the equation means that another human being is a wronged party, assuming they did not approve of an open marriage from the get go. It goes from being a victim-less foible to a potentially injurious series of actions. Someone may have gotten hurt, at least emotionally.

I personally frown upon affairs because if someone is unable to keep a promise to the person who is supposedly the most important in the world to them, how can they be expected to keep promises to anyone else?

But that's my own inability to compartmentalize work life and personal life. Perhaps Weiner and other politicians have no issues separating the two.

More importantly, is it normal *because* it's common?