• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

TraneWreck said:
Satisfying a necessary condition is basically meaningless, it gets you nowhere.
Click to expand...

You still haven't given me your sufficient requirements, so that's the best I can possibly do.

There's no way to describe this exchange save that you don't really understand how necessary and sufficient conditions operate. I gave a set of necessary conditions.
Click to expand...

And you DIDN'T give me the sufficient requirements. Therefore I cannot possibly present an argument for whether or not the sufficient requirements are satisfied.

The questions was asked about what makes something worth public scrutiny. I offered three necessary conditions. You have confused them for sufficient conditions
Click to expand...

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that the necessary conditions you laid out in that post were met. Anything beyond that is you reading into my response more than exists. Which, strangely enough, you seem to have a habit of doing.

Weiner did nothing illegal
Click to expand...

Actually, he did, but it's not connected to the tweets.

only the consent component is troubling
Click to expand...

The consent component is the only thing which troubles you. Let's be clear about that. I find plenty more than that troubling.
 
TraneWreck said:
Whether or not they need to dress up like Little Bo Peep and watch a burly man pull the heads off Barbie dolls to reach climax is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Why are you bringing Al Franken into this?

TraneWreck said:
People are complicated things. They can show poor judgment in some aspects of their lives and be incredibly competent in others. This need to declare someone "bad" based on an irrelevant activity is primitive.
Click to expand...

This would be your first visit to Earth then, right?
 
Ziggurat said:
You still haven't given me your sufficient requirements, so that's the best I can possibly do.
Click to expand...

And I will not. I'm not sure there are sufficient conditions, at least none I can identify right now. Perhaps "criminality."

Ziggurat said:
And you DIDN'T give me the sufficient requirements. Therefore I cannot possibly present an argument for whether or not the sufficient requirements are satisfied.
Click to expand...

This is all very confusing. Someone asked what would make a sex scandal worthy of public scrutiny, I offered three things that needed, in the least, to be present (necessary conditions). You responded by claiming that these necessary conditions were met in the Weiner saga via "newsflash." I disagreed, but pointed out that even if they were met, because they were necessary conditions, that wasn't enough to justify public scrutiny of Weiner.

At no point did I intend to give sufficient requirements, nor were they necessary to my point. If you're trying to present an argument about whether the sufficient requirements were met, you are doing so independently of the criteria I listed as necessary for a scandal to be publicly important.

This is just bizarre.


Ziggurat said:
I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that the necessary conditions you laid out in that post were met. Anything beyond that is you reading into my response more than exists. Which, strangely enough, you seem to have a habit of doing.
Click to expand...

Please, you made the following post:

Newsflash: Cordova never consented to having Weiner send her crotch shots.

Newsflash 2: Weiner was, in fact, acting hypocritically.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that this wasn't an argument justifying the public scrutiny of the Weiner scandal? It certainly reads that way.

If you did not intend that post to articulate a stance in favor of public scrutiny, then this last exchange of ours was based upon a misunderstanding.

Ziggurat said:
Actually, he did, but it's not connected to the tweets.
Click to expand...

...I gave necessary conditions for a sex scandal, you're just unloading buckshot right now and hoping it gives the appearance of a cogent argument.


Ziggurat said:
The consent component is the only thing which troubles you. Let's be clear about that. I find plenty more than that troubling.
Click to expand...

Ok, good for you. That's all that bothers me about this. If I found out a friend of mine was sending pictures of his cock to women in Germany, it would my change my opinion of him by exactly 0%. If he was married and his wife didn't know, I would think, "wow, hope they work it out." It would be up to them, not me.

I'd have a lower opinion if I found out he enjoyed Kenny G's music.
 
TraneWreck said:
Please, that's such a silly argument. Sending photos of your cock has no bearing on your ability to read legislation.

If you want to evaluate a Congressperson, look at how they vote, look at the arguments they make. Whether or not they need to dress up like Little Bo Peep and watch a burly man pull the heads off Barbie dolls to reach climax is irrelevant.

People are complicated things. They can show poor judgment in some aspects of their lives and be incredibly competent in others. This need to declare someone "bad" based on an irrelevant activity is primitive.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly rely on the decision making ability someone who thought that this was appropriate behavior for a person in his position? Cheating on his wife would be more "explainable."

Even worse is that, for whatever reason, he thought it wouldn't bite him in the butt. That's the stupid part.
 
The prize for the most roundabout way of saying "Leave Weiner alone" goes to this blog post:

I hate living in the suburbs. No, really, I hate it with a white hot passion. It’s because of the soccer moms. Of course, not all moms in the suburbs are soccer moms. Some of them are into LaCrosse. They might be working or stay at home. They run around in plush minivans and Lexus SUVs. I don’t get the Lexus SUV. If I were going to get a Lexus, the last thing I’d want is to haul kids around in it. It’s even more puzzling when the neighbors in my townhouse development get one. It’s like, “I can’t afford a single family home but gosh darnit, I’m not going to let the PTA know that. I’m getting a Lexus SUV.” The Lexus is the sign of “good people”.
Click to expand...

I know, you're thinking what does surburbia have to do with Weiner? Well, we get a hint here:
Is it wrong for an adult male to talk to a girl of 17 on the internet? A suburban soccer mom will tell you yes. Unequivocally. It is wrong for anyone who the parent does not personally know to talk to their children. About anything. Even the weather is off limits. ”It’s really hot today” is just a prelude to the cheezy porn movie music played just before the gardener trims a lovely young bush. You can’t even be in a park eating a donut unaccompanied by a child without being ticketed for suspicious behavior. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of suburban public opinion. You can not win this one.
Click to expand...

And eventually (after more fulminating about suburban values):
Oh, please, Nancy. Lay off already. Haven’t you done enough damage to women by tolerating the disgusting and over the top misogynism of the 2008 presidential campaign? Please, don’t do us any more favors. The suburban security frenzy is way out of control and ruining our children’s childhoods. Don’t add more fuel to the fire with these ridiculous calls for Weiner to resign. He’s an immature guy who needs some behavioral modification. He’s not a fricking predator.

Get a fricking grip already and ignore those damn Lexus SUVs.
Click to expand...
 
TraneWreck said:
And I will not. I'm not sure there are sufficient conditions, at least none I can identify right now.
Click to expand...

Since you won't identify the sufficient conditions, it's unreasonable for you to expect me to argue that he meets them.

This is all very confusing. Someone asked what would make a sex scandal worthy of public scrutiny, I offered three things that needed, in the least, to be present (necessary conditions). You responded by claiming that these necessary conditions were met in the Weiner saga via "newsflash." I disagreed, but pointed out that even if they were met, because they were necessary conditions, that wasn't enough to justify public scrutiny of Weiner.
Click to expand...

You did more than that. You claimed I didn't understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. This accusation was both false and ridiculous given that you never presented sufficient conditions.

Are you claiming that this wasn't an argument justifying the public scrutiny of the Weiner scandal?
Click to expand...

I'm claiming that it demonstrates that the conditions which you gave were satisfied, contrary to the implication of your post. Beyond that, I don't even know if there's even enough common ground about the necessary OR sufficient conditions for any further claim to be made about Weiner in particular.
 
Ziggurat said:
Since you won't identify the sufficient conditions, it's unreasonable for you to expect me to argue that he meets them.
Click to expand...

I never expected such. I simply noted that you were talking about the necessary conditions I proposed.


Ziggurat said:
You did more than that. You claimed I didn't understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. This accusation was both false and ridiculous given that you never presented sufficient conditions.
Click to expand...

I re-read the exchange. Assuming you understand that distinction it makes even less sense.

Of course I didn't offer any sufficient conditions, that was the point of using the word "only" in my first statement.

Once again, I have no idea what you're arguing. It appeared to me, as I stated before, that you were arguing that under the criteria I offered, the Weiner scandal merited public scrutiny. Thus, I responded by pointing out that even assuming the necessary conditions were met (which I still don't buy), based on the construction of my statement, that was an unwarranted conclusion.


Ziggurat said:
I'm claiming that it demonstrates that the conditions which you gave were satisfied, contrary to the implication of your post. Beyond that, I don't even know if there's even enough common ground about the necessary OR sufficient conditions for any further claim to be made about Weiner in particular.
Click to expand...

My initial post contained exactly zero information about Weiner. I was responding to a general challenge, generally.

So at this point we're just left with disagreeing whether those necessary conditions were met.
 
Clayton Moore said:
How can you possibly rely on the decision making ability someone who thought that this was appropriate behavior for a person in his position? Cheating on his wife would be more "explainable."

Even worse is that, for whatever reason, he thought it wouldn't bite him in the butt. That's the stupid part.
Click to expand...

Because those poor decisions have little to do with his ability to be a Congressperson.

The only way his job has been effective is that he's lost the ability to generate broad support, but that's only because people take the view that he's done something incredibly wrong, which is the very point at issue.

History is replete with very competent, even legendary figures that cheated on their wife, used prostitutes or otherwise engaged in some sex acts that WASPs are overwhelmed by.

FDR had affairs, so what? Jefferson slept with his slaves, still wrote a pretty damn good Declaration.
 
Brainster said:
I suspect the necessary condition is that the scandal involve a Republican.
Click to expand...

Oh please, I thought we covered this 15 pages ago.

Obviously the hypocrisy component opens up more Republicans to scrutiny, but that's their fault for babbling about "family values" and the other hollow moralizing.

But plenty of Democrats have screwed up in ways relevant and important to the public interest, with Spitzer being the most recent, clearest example. If it turned out that John Edwards was doing something illicit with campaign dollars (I confess that I haven't followed that case at all), then his story will be one the public should be aware of.
 
TraneWreck said:
But plenty of Democrats have screwed up in ways relevant and important to the public interest, with Spitzer being the most recent, clearest example. If it turned out that John Edwards was doing something illicit with campaign dollars (I confess that I haven't followed that case at all), then his story will be one the public should be aware of.
Click to expand...
Rangel is more recent scandal than Spitzer
 
1372 posts, and the politico and media focus on this issue has still done dick to actually address any serious questions facing the country.

Thank you folks, I'm here all night :D
 
As long Vitter is in office, I don't consider Republican opinions on this "scandal" relevant.
 
thaiboxerken said:
As long Vitter is in office, I don't consider Republican opinions on this "scandal" relevant.
Click to expand...

I agree with that! So far, what has been *ahem* revealed, doesn't measure up to what other sitting politicians have been caught doing.

He's proud of his body and sent some pix to some people. Guy needs help getting his marriage back together but... if a guy can leave the country on the taxpayer's dime, lie about being away, and where he was, and still stay in office... hell, what Weiner did, I've done (minus the e-affairs)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom