Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Brainster]

I was wrong and will totally admit it. My opinion of Weiner is that he is a very effective congressman, but a terrible person. However, I will still treat any story that comes from Breitbart with appropriate skepticism.

As you should. Indeed, I will go further and say that you should treat any story that comes from a conservative source with appropriate skepticism, just as I treat any story that comes from a liberal source with appropriate skepticism. In this way we can force both sides to be more honest.

And we can both strive to treat any stories from our own side with appropriate skepticism, knowing that our confirmation bias will make this more difficult.

 

[johnny karate]

It's not the crime, it's the coverup.

I have to agree with this sentiment. If Weiner would have just copped to it from the beginning, I really wouldn't have cared. But his own idiotic behavior turned it into a fiasco.

 

[JohnnyG]

No, it isn't, because that's not a story. It's an issue for the two of them.

Unfortunately you don't get to decide, the public does. And the public says you are wrong.

Let's force everyone who has flirted inappropriately while married to resign from their jobs tomorrow.

Who's left?

You consider what he did flirting? Do you think your wife would agree?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The cover up only matters if there were a crime. All we have is the sludge monster having a hissy fit that another Demoocrat is sexier than he is.

Give it up. Your boy got caught.

 

[TraneWreck]

Much as we may disagree over the significance of what Weiner did, this isn't the equivalent of the Clinton scandal. Clinton committed perjury. Weiner only lied. The difference matters.

It's the same process: the underlying issue isn't important, go for the secondary matters.

There's a reason perjury is a misdemeanor (unless it's federal) and obstruction of justice is about the lowest level felony possible.

 

[Bilbo]

Not knowing everything about Weiner, my guess is that the fame from his fiery floor speeches and television appearances led to a level of attention from women, especially young women, that was unprecedented in his world.

That's a powerful drug.

This is very true. I am sure there are quite a few Weiner cult girls in the college scene. He did/does know how to rile up the left with his witty rhetoric.

There has to be some reason Kucininch caught that tall red headed amazon...

/maybe it's his weiner

 

[Number Six]

Weiner has no control over the way the press and our country treats the incident.

It's a no-win situation on the Clinton model:

1) Force someone to answer embarassing questions.
2) If they fess to it, throw tantrum, worry about the kids.
3) If they deny it and it turns out to be true, throw tantrum, crocodile tears about the children, but now ignore whatever started the story and just whine about lying.

At least with Clinton they managed to complain about the blow job for a couple years before resorting to the "he lied, he lied," wailing. The fact that all you're talking about is the cover-up is excellent proof that the underlying issue is worthless. Prosecutors go after lies when the rest of their case has unraveled, no different here.

Scooter Libby lied about his role in outing Valerie Plame. The lie was all he could be prosecuted for, but the underlying issue was extremely important. When discussing Scooter Libby, the perjury or obstruction conviction is not what I'm upset about, it's the actual act of outing a CIA agent.

It's silly that people get worked up about such things but regardless the people involved should just tell the truth. Weiner should've told the truth from the beginning, and possibly added "Stuff like this is my personal life and shouldn't matter but if it matters to some people then it does." Or maybe he even could've just not answered questions from the start, saying "This is my personal life and it's not your business and if that makes you less likely to not vote for me then so be it." But the lying is what ultimately brings people down.

Bill Clinton, BTW, had sex with a co-worker in the workplace and everybody other than George Costanza knows that's wrong so although it was blown (no pun intended) into way more than it should've been, Bill brought it on himself by doing something he knew was wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

So the guy sent a picture of his member to a hot woman? Woah, the man has a sex life. Outrageous.

Yeah, um... I wouldn't call sending dirty pictures a "sex life".

But then, maybe your standards are lower than mine.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Much as we may disagree over the significance of what Weiner did, this isn't the equivalent of the Clinton scandal. Clinton committed perjury. Weiner only lied. The difference matters.

This is why Weiner never reported the hacking of his account to the police. As a guy on the radio explained it the other day:

Lying to Twitter is not a crime.
Lying to the media is not a crime.
Lying to your wife is not a crime.
Lying to your friends is not a crime.
Lying to your coworkers is not a crime.
Lying to the police is a crime.

 

[leftysergeant]

Give it up. Your boy got caught.

So freaking what? No crime was committed End of story. It is only big because the sludge monster and the little Republicon boys who are so intimidated by Weiner's willy are having a hissy fit.

There is no reason to step down.

There is nothing wrong with slinging more than any of the leading Republicon "men" have.

 

[JohnnyG]

Weiner has no control over the way the press and our country treats the incident.
...(idiotic non sequitur deleted)...

Right, so might as well lie about it. There's no way that could every make the story bigger.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So freaking what? No crime was committed End of story. It is only big because the sludge monster and the little Republicon boys who are so intimidated by Weiner's willy are having a hissy fit.

There is no reason to step down.

There is nothing wrong with slinging more than any of the leading Republicon "men" have.

He was exposed as a liar.

Now, I would argue that we already knew that, given his profession. But some people are naive about these matters.

 

[Number Six]

Unfortunately you don't get to decide, the public does. And the public says you are wrong.

That is it exactly. When you become a public figure the public judges you by whatever criteria they want. When someone says "It's his private sex life so he shouldn't be judged for it" what they really should be saying is "I don't judge people for his private sex life and I don't understand why others do, but they do and therefore his private sex life can have public consequences."

 

[Ziggurat]

/maybe it's his weiner

You mean wiener.

Also, Wikipedia can produce unexpected results (don't worry, it's safe for work).

 

[thaiboxerken]

He was exposed as a liar.
.

I don't agree. This particular lie was exposed. How many lies does it take to be a liar?

 

[stevea]

I still say it was a fun exercise and at the very least it caused people to take a second look at how sites like Twitter and yFrog handle security. Plus it enabled us to play internet sleuth.
....
(And Breitbart is still a liar and everything he says should be considered suspect until a second source is found)

The interesting part to me is to observe the posts by the various forum participants. Some were truly skeptical, and attempting to evaluate evidence rationally. Many like you and TraneWreck were guilt of the Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy (Breitbart said it, therefore it's a lie) or direct accusations that anti-Wiener actors were guilty of crimes based on zero evidence. Skepticism of Breitbart or any source is demanded, dismissal without evidence, based on prejudice is irrational.

So why is it that on a forum dedicated to "discuss skepticism, critical thinking, ...." that perhaps 80+% of comments on this thread contain gross logical fallacies ? On this thread and others there is a clear strong left partisan bias to the illogical arguments. My hunch is that left-partisans are somehow less able to keep their emotions and political biases from influencing their arguments.

WIth the exceptions of ziggurat, puppyc and a few others this thread is sad testimony to the horribly low quality of arguments on this forum.

 

[Brainster]

Scooter Libby lied about his role in outing Valerie Plame. The lie was all he could be prosecuted for, but the underlying issue was extremely important. When discussing Scooter Libby, the perjury or obstruction conviction is not what I'm upset about, it's the actual act of outing a CIA agent.

Then you're not upset about Libby:

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said yesterday that he believes he was the initial source for a 2003 newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that disclosed the CIA's previously secret employment of Valerie Plame, the wife of a prominent critic of the U.S. war in Iraq.

/derail

 

[JohnnyG]

Lying to the police is a crime.

Excellent point. That explains why he hired a lawyer but refused to file a police report.

I still don't understand why he didn't deny the photo was him. He lied about everything else, why did he consider that one over the line?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Did someone hack his tweeter account to get these racy photos that were supposed to be sent on a private line?

 

[TraneWreck]

It's silly that people get worked up about such things but regardless the people involved should just tell the truth. Weiner should've told the truth from the beginning, and possibly added "Stuff like this is my personal life and shouldn't matter but if it matters to some people then it does." Or maybe he even could've just not answered questions from the start, saying "This is my personal life and it's not your business and if that makes you less likely to not vote for me then so be it." But the lying is what ultimately brings people down.

Bill Clinton, BTW, had sex with a co-worker in the workplace and everybody other than George Costanza knows that's wrong so although it was blown (no pun intended) into way more than it should've been, Bill brought it on himself by doing something he knew was wrong.

I don't disagree with anything you've written, here, but I do have a problem when people get all sanctimonious about the lying, itself.

We all lie. Unless you've bought into some religion or Kantian deontology, there's no reason to view all lies the same. The severity of a lie is directly proportional to what the lie is about.

Lying about how your wife looks in a dress. Not a big deal.
Lying about flirting with people online. Not a big deal--except to Weiner's wife.
Lying about getting a hummer on the job. Not really surprising.

Lying about your investment bank to hide a Ponzi scheme. Bad.
Lying about outing a CIA agent. Bad.
Lying about bombing raids in Yemen (that's an Obama whopper for you, see, I can play fair). Bad.

If the underlying issue isn't important, the lie isn't, either. We try to draw these broad moral conclusions about someone's entire being based upon a lie in an embarassing situation. It doesn't work. Someone who lies about flirting with chicks online could carry on his employment responsibilities with complete integrity. The two literally have no bearing on one another.

Martin Luther King liked prostitutes. Does that reflect on his work in any way? Would our nation be better if his entire movement had been discredited because he bought whores?