Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni "both having affairs"

[Joe Republic]

I'm not sure how what you do in your marital life matters in your politician one...

In most cases it shouldn't (it does in the US, of course, but it shouldn't).  But as dead0man rightly pointed out, if a politician is willing to lie when giving vows at an altar and cheat on their spouses, then what kind of an indication is that about their character?

It means nothing. Why a bad husband and a bad father couldn't be a great statesman ? Such myth of a "perfect man" is senseless...

Nobody is ever perfect, least of all politicians.  But one who places no value in the promises he made in his private life is probably also likely to place no value in the promises he made to his constituents either.  If a man's wife can't even trust him, why should his voters?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure how what you do in your marital life matters in your politician one...

In most cases it shouldn't (it does in the US, of course, but it shouldn't).  But as dead0man rightly pointed out, if a politician is willing to lie when giving vows at an altar and cheat on their spouses, then what kind of an indication is that about their character?

It means nothing. Why a bad husband and a bad father couldn't be a great statesman ? Such myth of a "perfect man" is senseless...

Nobody is ever perfect, least of all politicians.  But one who places no value in the promises he made in his private life is probably also likely to place no value in the promises he made to his constituents either.  If a man's wife can't even trust him, why should his voters?

Or maybe he just likes changes and hot women. I'm not saying it's a good thing,  I personally find cheating disgusting : if you don't want fidelity you may simply not marry. But still, it has nothing to do with policies. Political promises ? The fact of keeping them or not have nothing to do with cheating : to know if a politician will or won't keep is promises, it's sufficient to have a look at his political history (if French had done Chirac would never have been elected) or at what is really makable. These two things are separate and should remain so.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm not sure how what you do in your marital life matters in your politician one...

In most cases it shouldn't (it does in the US, of course, but it shouldn't).  But as dead0man rightly pointed out, if a politician is willing to lie when giving vows at an altar and cheat on their spouses, then what kind of an indication is that about their character?

It means nothing. Why a bad husband and a bad father couldn't be a great statesman ? Such myth of a "perfect man" is senseless...

Nobody is ever perfect, least of all politicians.  But one who places no value in the promises he made in his private life is probably also likely to place no value in the promises he made to his constituents either.  If a man's wife can't even trust him, why should his voters?

Or maybe he just likes changes and hot women. I'm not saying it's a good thing,  I personally find cheating disgusting : if you don't want fidelity you may simply not marry. But still, it has nothing to do with policies. Political promises ? The fact of keeping them or not have nothing to do with cheating : to know if a politician will or won't keep is promises, it's sufficient to have a look at his political history (if French had done Chirac would never have been elected) or at what is really makable. These two things are separate and should remain so.

No. If a man is a liar, then he is a liar.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure how what you do in your marital life matters in your politician one...

In most cases it shouldn't (it does in the US, of course, but it shouldn't).  But as dead0man rightly pointed out, if a politician is willing to lie when giving vows at an altar and cheat on their spouses, then what kind of an indication is that about their character?

It means nothing. Why a bad husband and a bad father couldn't be a great statesman ? Such myth of a "perfect man" is senseless...

Nobody is ever perfect, least of all politicians.  But one who places no value in the promises he made in his private life is probably also likely to place no value in the promises he made to his constituents either.  If a man's wife can't even trust him, why should his voters?

Or maybe he just likes changes and hot women. I'm not saying it's a good thing,  I personally find cheating disgusting : if you don't want fidelity you may simply not marry. But still, it has nothing to do with policies. Political promises ? The fact of keeping them or not have nothing to do with cheating : to know if a politician will or won't keep is promises, it's sufficient to have a look at his political history (if French had done Chirac would never have been elected) or at what is really makable. These two things are separate and should remain so.

No. If a man is a liar, then he is a liar.

[useful idiot]

No. If a man is a liar, then he is a liar.

[/quote]

Typical French response. The ugly Americans just don't get it, ethics are so passe...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For some reason this reminds me of an Ole and Lena joke:

Ole, Lena and a friend were all out driving in a car when they got in a horrible accident. All three of them died.

At the gates to Heaven Ole saw St. Peter. He said "Before you can enter you must answer this question truthfully: Did you ever cheat on your wife?"

"No.", Ole replied. "Not even once."

A Mercedes appeared. "Here is your vehicle. You can now enter" said St. Peter.

Their friend was the next in line. St. Peter asked him the same question.

"Eh, once or twice yes..." he replied.

A moped then appeared. "You may enter Heaven but only using this vehicle." St. Peter said.

Later Ole and his friend met up.

"Wow, looks like you got a bum deal." Ole said when noticing his friend's ride.

"Eh, could be worse." He replied. "I just saw Lena on a skateboard."

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical French response. The ugly Americans just don't get it, ethics are so passe...

Did you never lie, man ?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For the record, I do believe that adultery is grounds to be fired from the FBI, the reason being that if someone engages in it they can't be considered trustworthy.

[useful idiot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical French response. The ugly Americans just don't get it, ethics are so passe...

Did you never lie, man ?

Of course I've lied, but lying is one thing. Breaking a contract, dishonoring the most personal vow one can make, and deceiving the person you've dedicated your life to is another. Character matters, even if the elites are above such quaint heartland values...

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical French response. The ugly Americans just don't get it, ethics are so passe...

Did you never lie, man ?

Of course I've lied, but lying is one thing. Breaking a contract, dishonoring the most personal vow one can make, and deceiving the person you've dedicated your life to is another. Character matters, even if the elites are above such quaint heartland values...

Indeed, there are different sorts of lies. Actually, there's nearly as much sorts of lies as lies themselves. Which means that private and public lies are different. Case made.

[Bo]

I need some verification for this.

[Хahar 🤔]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical French response. The ugly Americans just don't get it, ethics are so passe...

Did you never lie, man ?

Of course I've lied, but lying is one thing. Breaking a contract, dishonoring the most personal vow one can make, and deceiving the person you've dedicated your life to is another. Character matters, even if the elites are above such quaint heartland values...

Indeed, there are different sorts of lies. Actually, there's nearly as much sorts of lies as lies themselves. Which means that private and public lies are different. Case made.

No. If you are willing to lie to that extent, you cannot be trusted with anything.

[opebo]

No. If a man is a liar, then he is a liar.

Wrong.  Ones willingness to lie depends on a great variety of factors, from the ease of telling, to the chance of repercussion, to the reasonableness of demands made.  Basically being honest politically and professionally is much easier than in a marriage.

Think of it this way, who do you lie to, your girlfriend or your male friends?

The reason men lie to women is because women's demands are ridiculously unreasonable.

[useful idiot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical French response. The ugly Americans just don't get it, ethics are so passe...

Did you never lie, man ?

Of course I've lied, but lying is one thing. Breaking a contract, dishonoring the most personal vow one can make, and deceiving the person you've dedicated your life to is another. Character matters, even if the elites are above such quaint heartland values...

Indeed, there are different sorts of lies. Actually, there's nearly as much sorts of lies as lies themselves. Which means that private and public lies are different. Case made.

I don't think this is English, but I understand the point you're trying to make, and it's retarded.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical French response. The ugly Americans just don't get it, ethics are so passe...

Did you never lie, man ?

Of course I've lied, but lying is one thing. Breaking a contract, dishonoring the most personal vow one can make, and deceiving the person you've dedicated your life to is another. Character matters, even if the elites are above such quaint heartland values...

Indeed, there are different sorts of lies. Actually, there's nearly as much sorts of lies as lies themselves. Which means that private and public lies are different. Case made.

No. If you are willing to lie to that extent, you cannot be trusted with anything.

Stop considering "lying" as a single thing. Here is the real problem with such mentality : "lying" means nothing per se, it always depends to the context and the meaning of a lie. A personal lie is one thing, a political one is another. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I don't think this is English, but I understand the point you're trying to make, and it's retarded.

Thanks, now I just have to understand the "useful" in your username.

[Gustaf]

In more corrupt, elitist countries with a more primitive view towards men and women and marriages, I'd agree that the concept of powerful men having their private harems being less trustworthy doesn't fly.

But thinking it has anything to do with being social progressive is laughable. It was much more tolerated in older societies for men to have mistresses. Look at any king before the year 1800 or so. Hell, just look at any of the more primitive cultures we have in the world today.

France is known in Europe as one of the least progressive countries on the continent when it comes to gender issues. While this is a largely unfair stereotype today, compared to many of the other countries it helps explain why it is accepted for their political leaders to behave this way.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In more corrupt, elitist countries with a more primitive view towards men and women and marriages, I'd agree that the concept of powerful men having their private harems being less trustworthy doesn't fly.

But thinking it has anything to do with being social progressive is laughable. It was much more tolerated in older societies for men to have mistresses. Look at any king before the year 1800 or so. Hell, just look at any of the more primitive cultures we have in the world today.

France is known in Europe as one of the least progressive countries on the continent when it comes to gender issues. While this is a largely unfair stereotype today, compared to many of the other countries it helps explain why it is accepted for their political leaders to behave this way.

LOL this is pathetic. You are basically introducing an argument that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Yeah, of course those who don't care about whether or not politicians cheat are just evul sexists ! Of course ! Except that you are the only one introducing a gender discrimination in the whole reasoning. So :
-Either you assume that I accept cheating only for men but not for women. In this case you deserve just a facepalm.
-Either you think that women never cheat, so that it's irrelevant. Thus you are reversely sexist.
-Or you believe that there's no problem when women cheat, but only when men do. Same conclusion.

Which of these three ?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

France is known in Europe as one of the least progressive countries on the continent when it comes to gender issues. While this is a largely unfair stereotype today, compared to many of the other countries it helps explain why it is accepted for their political leaders to behave this way.

Yes, it is a largely unfair stereotype if ever it exists, but I'm not sure you should look that way for speaking about what we're speaking about. There is here really something very important in the fact that private life and public one are really cut, privacy is something very very important in France. Second, I don't think we have a very sexist view that way, actually. And, the fact we tolerate it much than anglo/prot countries has I think more to do with a culture that is more liberal with strict monogamist views, I'd say more realist in that realm, and that is able to see it as something sweet and/or just understandable more than something 'depraved'.

A personal lie is one thing, a political one is another. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes

No. If you are willing to lie to that extent, you cannot be trusted with anything.

.K.

There is the Good and there is the Bad. You're Good or you're Bad. Bad once, Bad all the life. Bad here, Bad everywhere. You're with us or you're against us.

Hmm, or we can try nuances, contexts, rehabilitation.

[Gustaf]

In more corrupt, elitist countries with a more primitive view towards men and women and marriages, I'd agree that the concept of powerful men having their private harems being less trustworthy doesn't fly.

But thinking it has anything to do with being social progressive is laughable. It was much more tolerated in older societies for men to have mistresses. Look at any king before the year 1800 or so. Hell, just look at any of the more primitive cultures we have in the world today.

France is known in Europe as one of the least progressive countries on the continent when it comes to gender issues. While this is a largely unfair stereotype today, compared to many of the other countries it helps explain why it is accepted for their political leaders to behave this way.

LOL this is pathetic. You are basically introducing an argument that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Yeah, of course those who don't care about whether or not politicians cheat are just evul sexists ! Of course ! Except that you are the only one introducing a gender discrimination in the whole reasoning. So :
-Either you assume that I accept cheating only for men but not for women. In this case you deserve just a facepalm.
-Either you think that women never cheat, so that it's irrelevant. Thus you are reversely sexist.
-Or you believe that there's no problem when women cheat, but only when men do. Same conclusion.

Which of these three ?

You don't seem to be very good with logical arguments. Your little tricothomy is false, but for one thing I do think it might be more controversial for a woman to cheat on her husband than for a man to do the same. My french teacher was an au-pair in France and the father tried to have sex with her. When she asked him what he would do if his wife had sex with another woman his immediate reply was that he would throw her out on the street.

In fact, it is common knowledge that promiscuity is much more accepted for men than for women.

What you "accept" or not does not really enter into my thinking at all, since I don't particularly care.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The word "primitive" should be expunged from all dictionaries immediatly.

[Gustaf]

The word "primitive" should be expunged from all dictionaries immediatly.

I was being provocative, but I stand by the idea that it is more primitive to have a sexist culture. Sexism like a lot of other prejudices tend to fade in the light of progress, imo.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The word "primitive" should be expunged from all dictionaries immediatly.

I was being provocative, but I stand by the idea that it is more primitive to have a sexist culture. Sexism like a lot of other prejudices tend to fade in the light of progress, imo.

"Light of Progress" AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH... *must destroy post*

Of course we are clearly SO enlightened these days. Whatever that means.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In more corrupt, elitist countries with a more primitive view towards men and women and marriages, I'd agree that the concept of powerful men having their private harems being less trustworthy doesn't fly.

But thinking it has anything to do with being social progressive is laughable. It was much more tolerated in older societies for men to have mistresses. Look at any king before the year 1800 or so. Hell, just look at any of the more primitive cultures we have in the world today.

France is known in Europe as one of the least progressive countries on the continent when it comes to gender issues. While this is a largely unfair stereotype today, compared to many of the other countries it helps explain why it is accepted for their political leaders to behave this way.

LOL this is pathetic. You are basically introducing an argument that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Yeah, of course those who don't care about whether or not politicians cheat are just evul sexists ! Of course ! Except that you are the only one introducing a gender discrimination in the whole reasoning. So :
-Either you assume that I accept cheating only for men but not for women. In this case you deserve just a facepalm.
-Either you think that women never cheat, so that it's irrelevant. Thus you are reversely sexist.
-Or you believe that there's no problem when women cheat, but only when men do. Same conclusion.

Which of these three ?

You don't seem to be very good with logical arguments. Your little tricothomy is false, but for one thing I do think it might be more controversial for a woman to cheat on her husband than for a man to do the same. My french teacher was an au-pair in France and the father tried to have sex with her. When she asked him what he would do if his wife had sex with another woman his immediate reply was that he would throw her out on the street.

In fact, it is common knowledge that promiscuity is much more accepted for men than for women.

What you "accept" or not does not really enter into my thinking at all, since I don't particularly care.

Ok, so my trichotomy is false, but you won't tell me what would be the fourth option. I probably have no reason to try to understand the sense of what you said, since you probably don't know it yourself. You introduced the argument of sexism in the discussion even though it had absolutely nothing to do with that, so I assume that making such pointless attacks was your only argument. And yeah, guy, keep thinking that France is THE evil country where everybody is sexist and hypocrit, if it comforts your vision of humanity...

[Gustaf]

In more corrupt, elitist countries with a more primitive view towards men and women and marriages, I'd agree that the concept of powerful men having their private harems being less trustworthy doesn't fly.

But thinking it has anything to do with being social progressive is laughable. It was much more tolerated in older societies for men to have mistresses. Look at any king before the year 1800 or so. Hell, just look at any of the more primitive cultures we have in the world today.

France is known in Europe as one of the least progressive countries on the continent when it comes to gender issues. While this is a largely unfair stereotype today, compared to many of the other countries it helps explain why it is accepted for their political leaders to behave this way.

LOL this is pathetic. You are basically introducing an argument that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Yeah, of course those who don't care about whether or not politicians cheat are just evul sexists ! Of course ! Except that you are the only one introducing a gender discrimination in the whole reasoning. So :
-Either you assume that I accept cheating only for men but not for women. In this case you deserve just a facepalm.
-Either you think that women never cheat, so that it's irrelevant. Thus you are reversely sexist.
-Or you believe that there's no problem when women cheat, but only when men do. Same conclusion.

Which of these three ?

You don't seem to be very good with logical arguments. Your little tricothomy is false, but for one thing I do think it might be more controversial for a woman to cheat on her husband than for a man to do the same. My french teacher was an au-pair in France and the father tried to have sex with her. When she asked him what he would do if his wife had sex with another woman his immediate reply was that he would throw her out on the street.

In fact, it is common knowledge that promiscuity is much more accepted for men than for women.

What you "accept" or not does not really enter into my thinking at all, since I don't particularly care.

Ok, so my trichotomy is false, but you won't tell me what would be the fourth option. I probably have no reason to try to understand the sense of what you said, since you probably don't know it yourself. You introduced the argument of sexism in the discussion even though it had absolutely nothing to do with that, so I assume that making such pointless attacks was your only argument. And yeah, guy, keep thinking that France is THE evil country where everybody is sexist and hypocrit, if it comforts your vision of humanity...

What the hell is your problem? I even mentioned how it was an unfair stereotype. I mean, I even mentioned a possible fourth option. Read my post next time.

I noted that acceptance of infidelity is linked to sexism which differs across cultures. Given that you were discussing how acceptance of infidelity differs across cultures, it is highly relevant.

You may disagree but you cannot claim it as irrelevant. Now, to give YOU a little dichothomy. You can back up your claim in two ways:

1. You can claim that sexism is not linked with acceptance of infidelity at all.
2. You can claim that sexism does not differ across cultures.
(3. accept that you were spouting nonsense when you called my point irrelevant)

Gully: I never said we were super-enlighted today. But I do believe that we are more enlightened than before. Having dismantled things like slavery, absolute monarchy, introducing freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc counts for something in my book.   

[Antonio the Sixth]

In more corrupt, elitist countries with a more primitive view towards men and women and marriages, I'd agree that the concept of powerful men having their private harems being less trustworthy doesn't fly.

But thinking it has anything to do with being social progressive is laughable. It was much more tolerated in older societies for men to have mistresses. Look at any king before the year 1800 or so. Hell, just look at any of the more primitive cultures we have in the world today.

France is known in Europe as one of the least progressive countries on the continent when it comes to gender issues. While this is a largely unfair stereotype today, compared to many of the other countries it helps explain why it is accepted for their political leaders to behave this way.

LOL this is pathetic. You are basically introducing an argument that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Yeah, of course those who don't care about whether or not politicians cheat are just evul sexists ! Of course ! Except that you are the only one introducing a gender discrimination in the whole reasoning. So :
-Either you assume that I accept cheating only for men but not for women. In this case you deserve just a facepalm.
-Either you think that women never cheat, so that it's irrelevant. Thus you are reversely sexist.
-Or you believe that there's no problem when women cheat, but only when men do. Same conclusion.

Which of these three ?

You don't seem to be very good with logical arguments. Your little tricothomy is false, but for one thing I do think it might be more controversial for a woman to cheat on her husband than for a man to do the same. My french teacher was an au-pair in France and the father tried to have sex with her. When she asked him what he would do if his wife had sex with another woman his immediate reply was that he would throw her out on the street.

In fact, it is common knowledge that promiscuity is much more accepted for men than for women.

What you "accept" or not does not really enter into my thinking at all, since I don't particularly care.

Ok, so my trichotomy is false, but you won't tell me what would be the fourth option. I probably have no reason to try to understand the sense of what you said, since you probably don't know it yourself. You introduced the argument of sexism in the discussion even though it had absolutely nothing to do with that, so I assume that making such pointless attacks was your only argument. And yeah, guy, keep thinking that France is THE evil country where everybody is sexist and hypocrit, if it comforts your vision of humanity...

What the hell is your problem? I even mentioned how it was an unfair stereotype. I mean, I even mentioned a possible fourth option. Read my post next time.

I noted that acceptance of infidelity is linked to sexism which differs across cultures. Given that you were discussing how acceptance of infidelity differs across cultures, it is highly relevant.

You may disagree but you cannot claim it as irrelevant. Now, to give YOU a little dichothomy. You can back up your claim in two ways:

1. You can claim that sexism is not linked with acceptance of infidelity at all.
2. You can claim that sexism does not differ across cultures.
(3. accept that you were spouting nonsense when you called my point irrelevant)

Gully: I never said we were super-enlighted today. But I do believe that we are more enlightened than before. Having dismantled things like slavery, absolute monarchy, introducing freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc counts for something in my book.   

No, sexism is not linked with acceptance of infidelity indeed, not in my view at least. If the title of the thread were "Angela Merkel having an affair", my reaction would have been the same : don't care. The question of whether or not most people tolerate infidelity more when it regards a man than when it regards a woman is irrelevant, since it's not my case neither yours. Basically, your initial argument was that those who tolerate infidelity used to be sexist (and of course, France was the perfect example). But I doubt this argument could affect me or those who agree with me. So yes, your point was irrelevant.

And BTW, I'm among the firsts to admit that my country is pretty sh*tty on several domains, and among others about gender equality. But when people like "useful idiot" and you start using the "france sukz" argument in a discussion I really feel depressed.