View Single Post
Old 11-06-2006, 05:35 AM   #82 (permalink)
FoolThemAll
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigglet
FoolThemAll,

I think your second sentence in the post above is the key for me - I disagree that in these types of instances, the relevance is wholey within the domain of the the hypocrite's personal life. They set themselves up for political office by buidling an image of their private lives. (Once again, I'm not speaking about this particular guy - rather, the question in general and the situations under which I can understand the validity of "outing" someone for closet behavior, whether it be specifically homosexuality or something else) If their private lives, in actuality, are significantly different than the image of the private lives they build up, run on, and are elected for - then I think its entirely valid to point that out. They are inherently lying to their constituents about topics they have inherently conceded are of political importants to their consituents - otherwise they wouldn't run on family imagery in the first place. They would just stand up in their commercials, outline their platform, and then stfu. I'd be fine with that.
It's a lie, yes, but it's an irrelevant lie that's not hurting the constituents. Even if the constituents would mistakenly think otherwise. Now, it certainly hurts the wife... but the activist was clearly interested in letting many more people than just her know about it. And I'm honestly not sure what I think of a third party revealing adultery to an unknowing spouse - undecided there.

Quote:
In addition, I can understand how someone within the community that the politician is secretly a member of, while publicly enacting legislation and enforcing attitudes counter to the interests of the affected community, could easily have an attitude of "fuck you asshole hypocrite bastard," such that they might feel empowered by the outing. I find that reason less compelling, but I can certainly understand it. As I said, I think the affected politician sets themselves up for it, and if the accusation is a lie, the politician can always sue for slander or libel - like anyone else in the States.
Yeah, I find it less compelling as well. Tearing down someone else to build yourself up?

I agree that the politician set himself up for this to happen. Hell, someone walking down a Detroit alley wearing white power insignia is obviously inviting violence. But that doesn't make the response moral. I can't make the move from "the politician should've expected this" to "the politician deserved this".
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360