Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Lying on a resume is wrong. But putting questions about one's sex life on a resume would be the greater wrong, in my view.
|
Ok, what if I lied about something irrelevant to my job on my resume. What if I said "pigglet was aboard the 1969 Apollo mission that went to the moon. he speaks swahili on alternate saturdays. beat bobby fisher in best of five chess match in central park. honorary member of the Royal Order of the Noble Otter - Grand Poobah." None of that is germane to my job one way or the other. What if I "elected" to put things like "family man, father of 10, Church Alderman and Sunday school teacher" and it turned out I was a single guy with no kids, and hadn't been to Church in ages? You think my boss might not point that out to me, and other people in the company, and possibly clients I work with? It goes to character - and my boss is thinking "I've got some crazy fucking pigglet working for me. Shit, is this grounds to fire? Can I get rid of this nutcase before he fucks something serious up? Who makes up this crap on their resume?"
Part of it goes to character, honesty and integrity.
Quote:
I could see how it might, but not at all how it must. People are perfectly capable of behaving differently in different contexts...
So are the closeted ones who don't make sexual orientation an issue. Should we out them as well?
|
I think they're taking a huge chance with their political office, and I don't really feel comfortable knowing that people could be so easily manipulated by something so stupid as who they like to fuck. Similar as to the above, I think that the rule is that we
do expose people for their public lies about their private lives, particularly if its relevant to what they do for a living. You say its not relevant, I'll address that below.
The point is, we make an exception on sexual orientation, because people are so sensitive to it. Which is fine, and normally - no - I don't think we should out people. But, if they choose to make it an issue, then it comes on the table. It is standard fare to investigate the lies and hypocracy in our public figures, not only in cases like sexual orientation. Remember Gary Hart? Fucking a female model - but he still got in big time trouble. How about that Clinton guy. Seems like people got all up in arms about that shit - Monica had boobies. This shit happens all the time. You're essentially advocating that we withhold some information, in terms of sexual orientation, because of the sensitive nature. Fine. But if the public figure makes issues of sexual orientation critical to his public political persona, I say he loses that privelage of having his private life protected.
Quote:
|
But I'm guessing you mean in the realm of the lawful. Well... any inactions from which the politician falsely claimed to gain relevant experience. ..the whole swiftboat thing if true might maybe fit here as an example ...But as a contrived-yet-better made-up example, a politician that pushed his ability to pass the bar exam all on his own, despite his actual use of twelve Ivy League-bred tutors, should probably be exposed..... That's fair game, it throws a relevant claim into doubt. Unless, of course, he backed it up just as well with a couple of true episodes... then I'd tend to regard it as irrelevant once again...
|
What if he claimed to gain relevance for his social/political agenda from his God-fearing straight wife-missionary-style fucking with four kids a white house and a picket fence existence, where he was advocating a social agenda in lieu of actual "political" issues (taxes, national defense, insurance, social security reform, etc)? That's what these guys do. They run on social agendas. Do I think that's bullshit? Yes. Yes I do. But they choose to run for election based on this horseshit - and live by the sword, die by the sword I say. He's claiming he represents their social agenda imagery, through and through. He's a real go getter, and man's man that all the ladies love. He's commited to his wife, he works hard to put his kids through college. He goes to the hardware store and he knows where they keep the spark plugs. He wants to keep America the way its been for at least 50 years for some of the people, some of the time.
Turns out, its not true. Well, he chose to run on it, he gets the shaft when its pointed out to be blantantly false. For many cases, even though I dislike the blantant lying to get elected, in the case of homosexuality its particularly bad. Why?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FTA
Show me the effect of the private hypocrisy on the politics. "How does it not effect it?" doesn't cut it.
|
I mean, how could sexual orientation be relevant to a politicians career? Hmmm...
There is no federal law preventing workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, and in 33 states it is currently legal to discriminate on this basis. As I said, these guys help create and sustain a pervassive environment that is discriminatory towards gay people. If that's your magic issue, twisted as it is, then you'd better at least live by your own statements.
How does hyprocracy affect public positions and politics? I was looking for a study on the subject, but can't find one at present. Essentially, if you are advocating positions that you don't actually believe in - it seems to me that you're always having to imagine contexts under which your arguments make sense. You clearly don't believe them yourself, because you act in ways that are contrary to your stated beliefs. So you have no choice to but to adopt a fantasy position, and then argue based on what you imagine the merits of it to be. Regardless of whether you *think* you undestand your "constituents" desires (presumable who elected you to keep the gays down...just a little bit), it seems to me that there is an inherent schism between your belief system and your constituents. They elect you because the majority of them think you fundamentally represent them. That's what they want. Not just a mouthpiece, but a person who shares their beliefs on a fundamental level. You don't. What if a question comes on a complex piece of legislation, and you have to pretend as though you understand where your consituents would draw the line in discriminatory practices. Would a person who really thinks that homosexuality is sin and evil, through and through, tend to believe that you love the sinner, hate the sin...or would they stone the bastards? To a certain extent these questions are always going to go through the mind of an elected official - but in this case, they don't have firm fundamental ground to make their own interpretations. To me, it makes them less useful, less predictable, and more easily influenced by what the think public perception might be.