The Good Post Gallery

[Gustaf]

No, Bill Clinton is a leader and a man of integrity.  There should be no comparison.

"A man of integrity"? The guy had an affair while in office and then lied about it under oath and Mitt Romney can't compare to him because of his integrity?  

Integrity is a wide term, not limited for private affairs.

Yeah, it means adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. And this is used to describe... Bill Clinton of all people. Really? Really?

What goes on in a politician's personal life bears no relevance to me.  And besides, Ken Starr's investigation of the scandal was far more unethical and deceptive than anything Clinton's ever said.

It may not matter to you, but it does to most Americans.  This isn't France.  What most foreigners (and quite a few American liberals, apparently) don't understand, is that in America, when you become a public official (especially as a Congressman or as the President of the United States) your life instantly comes under greater scrutiny.  You bear a greater responsibility to uphold your office in every aspect including your private life because we as citizens have higher expectations of you since you are representing us.  How you conduct your private affairs reflect on your public role.  There no line of separation between the two.  When you fall short, the consequences are that much greater.  

No it doesn't.  It only matters to right-wing media pundits who are still trying to turn it into the next Watergate.  It didn't work then, it isn't working now, and public opinion polls indicate that the public has apparently forgiven the incident.  When you're elected to public office, your responsibilities are merely to represent and govern efficiently.  Being a faithful husband is completely independent and irrelevant to those.

This x10000

It's a bit sad that that post made it into here, since it clearly suffered from considerable confusion.

[Gustaf]

It's a bit sad that that post made it into here, since it clearly suffered from considerable confusion.

Well as if the Democrats wouldn't do exactly the same thing (and rightly so) if Bush I or Reagan were the one caught getting it on with the secretary and then lying under oath about it.

My point was more that none of that gives Clinton more integrity. Writing several posts of that length without even addressing the actual issue hardly qualifies as exceptionally good in my book. Then again, this thread is about as stupid as the Deluge - it seems to serve just as a way of expressing agreement outside of the actual discussion thread.

[Gustaf]

I should clearly post more about womens' issues if it makes even Antonio like my posts.

[Gustaf]

I should clearly post more about womens' issues if it makes even Antonio like my posts.

That's what I found particularly infuriating about our post-DSK affair feud. I have for long been a passionate advocate of gender theories, and very sensitive to displays of patriarchal/reactionary mentalities, so being cast as a sexist or even a rape apologist was truly unbearable to me.

(I will admit that some of my comments, in the wake of the shock that the affair was to me as a French leftist, have been poorly thought or misguided - but I also maintain that you have a disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them)

Well, when someone opens a discussion by labeling me a bigot I become a lot less inclined to be charitable in debate. One might even think of such behaviour as a disturbing tendency to judge people very early and arguing against a strawman.

But I can't say I care that much about how you rationalize that exchange afterwards. If you want to think that I'm characterized by judging people or debating strawmen, that's fine. I'm sure Memphis would agree with you by now...  

[Gustaf]

I should clearly post more about womens' issues if it makes even Antonio like my posts.

That's what I found particularly infuriating about our post-DSK affair feud. I have for long been a passionate advocate of gender theories, and very sensitive to displays of patriarchal/reactionary mentalities, so being cast as a sexist or even a rape apologist was truly unbearable to me.

(I will admit that some of my comments, in the wake of the shock that the affair was to me as a French leftist, have been poorly thought or misguided - but I also maintain that you have a disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them)

Well, when someone opens a discussion by labeling me a bigot I become a lot less inclined to be charitable in debate. One might even think of such behaviour as a disturbing tendency to judge people very early and arguing against a strawman.

But I can't say I care that much about how you rationalize that exchange afterwards. If you want to think that I'm characterized by judging people or debating strawmen, that's fine. I'm sure Memphis would agree with you by now...  

And I labeled you a bigot after how made a comment about how this wasn't surprising since DSK was French, a comment which you later explained was humorous and admitted that, if serious, it would indeed have been a sign of bigotry. I think my misunderstanding of the tone of your comment is fairly understandable in context.

Now, I admitted I did overreact in certain instances, but I encourage you to also face your own issues and flaws - unless you prefer to think everything was my fault.

Your post against Memphis was substantial, comprehensive, and went deep to the core of the argument, hence my posting it here.

That's not what I said - I characterized rape as a cultural misunderstanding which is hard to take seriously. It'd make me a pretty strange person if I meant it. It was a humorous way of conveying the point that French men are known for sexist behaviour which is also something that became a central part of the debate everywhere (except maybe in France) after the incident.

You were reacting very emotionally so in that context I guess it's understandable that you'd lash out at people.

Anyway, thanks for quoting my post, it wasn't my intention to drag this out again. It was just a humourous observation since I got 2 posts quoted into here from that discussion.

[Gustaf]

Mr Lief, there is an inksing huge difference between "contrary opinions" and this kind of bullinks:

It's a good thing this country prioritizes low taxes and the rights of paranoid rednecks over mental healthcare and gun control.

Is there? Most opinions on this site that are contrary to my own seem like bullinks to me, but you don't see me making a whiny thread about, complaining that I'm a persecuted victim, and then running away like a baby.

I'll admit, you're right on this one. Instead, we get to see you deride and call for the figurative crucifixion of anyone who disagrees with you. It's much better, see.

Who do I deride and figuratively crucify? Is he still mad because I suggested that Oldiesfreak was a bigot because he called Janet Napolitano and Tammy Baldwin "space bikers"?

If someone is using homophobic or racist language, I'm going to call them out on it. If I use that sort of language, I'd hope people do the same.

You didn't seem to like it that much when you were called out on wishing the death of Jews. Good thing you didn't make a whiny thread about that, at least. If you had you might look like a hypocrite now.

[Gustaf]

Eh well I missed that part. The rest though was a good rebuttal to Gustaf's constant pearl-clutching in that thread. Antonio's doing a great job of owning him otherwise.

Eh...do you realize that that post was not directed at me nor did it rebut anything I said in the thread? Also, Antonio is mostly agreeing with me in that thread (as is Ingemann, actually).

For a devout Christian at Christmas time you seem very blinded by your hatred, dearest.

[Gustaf]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

It's how I feel right now. (See 'Opinion of Memphis' thread; I spend my Friday evenings presiding over discussions of philosophy; I should remember these things, especially if I'm going to use them as insults.)

So you’re not fussed about the fact you insulted someone whose actually a quite a good and quite a considerate poster, just that you messed up your insult. You have interesting priorities

Even a supporter of Memphis can't really claim that he's considerate. Even I wouldn't claim that title for myself.

[Gustaf]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

It's how I feel right now. (See 'Opinion of Memphis' thread; I spend my Friday evenings presiding over discussions of philosophy; I should remember these things, especially if I'm going to use them as insults.)

So you’re not fussed about the fact you insulted someone whose actually a quite a good and quite a considerate poster, just that you messed up your insult. You have interesting priorities

I know you disagree with and are disappointed in me on this, and I'm sorry that's the case (insofar as that kind of apology is ever really worth much), but whether or not Joe is a good poster on other grounds and in other areas (and he is; a very good one), I don't actually think the substance of my observation was either inappropriate or incorrect. I suppose I am sorry for couching it as an insult but I'm not sure how else I really could have and maintained the desired effect.

Gustaf, the post under discussion was one directed at Joe, not memphis.

Oh. Well, my point still stands. If Joe is considerate I think I can claim to be as well.

(and that's not an insult - I don't think being nice to bad people on the internet is that much of a virtue)

[Gustaf]

But aren't you nice to bad people in real life on a daily basis?

Yes, but I'm not convinced that is a virtue.

[Gustaf]

But aren't you nice to bad people in real life on a daily basis?

Yes, but I'm not convinced that is a virtue.

I think Gus and I would get along better if he would stop referring to those with whom he has differences as "bad people." It's easy to get emotional about politics, but nobody on here is a "bad person." I find that sort of comment to a demonstration of something very important about character and judgment.

I will admit it does seem to be a bit of a problem.

And if what you said in the bolded is true, I've clearly misjudged your character.  And for that I apologize.

I think plenty of people in real world and on here are bad people. If someone acts or talks in a way that I find unacceptable I'll say so. I don't see why I should be respectful of someone just because they happen to be a member here. And I can't think of anyone else who does that on here either.

There are opinions I can disagree with and respect (e.g. raising the minimum wage is great or the EU should be more integrated). And then there are those I don't respect. Memphis' views on women fall into the latter category.

If respect or the term 'good person' is to have any meaning it can't be bestowed upon everyone regardless of their behaviour.

Gustaf's post was excellent indeed. I wish he'd stick to these kinds of posts.

Well, Memphis response to it amounted to saying 'boo hoo'. Sbane insulted my intelligence in a ridiculous fashion. So, putting effort into a thoughtful post was essentially meaningless. I might as well have stuck to name-calling. See, the incentive for me to explain my thinking disappears when the other person seems too aggressive, stupid or morally vile to bother with a proper discussion. And such is often the case.

[Gustaf]

Gays have one huge advantage: their target group also wants sex.

Haha, what. Have you met women? They enjoy good sex. More than men do, I think.

[Gustaf]

Gays have one huge advantage: their target group also wants sex.

Haha, what. Have you met women? They enjoy good sex. More than men do, I think.

Like many places on the internet I think men here confuse "women don't want to have sex with me" with "women don't want to have sex".

Its still the same point.  Males want sex so much they'll have it with (almost) anyone, women hardly want it at all - they only have it with a select few.  The motivation levels are radically different.

Though admittedly it is in fact straight males who are so indiscriminate/desperate - gay men are notoriously fussy, with the gym bodies and all that.

I know plenty of women who go crazy if they don't get sex. I'm not sure where this notion comes from.

[Gustaf]

Gays have one huge advantage: their target group also wants sex.

Haha, what. Have you met women? They enjoy good sex. More than men do, I think.

Like many places on the internet I think men here confuse "women don't want to have sex with me" with "women don't want to have sex".

Its still the same point.  Males want sex so much they'll have it with (almost) anyone, women hardly want it at all - they only have it with a select few.  The motivation levels are radically different.

Though admittedly it is in fact straight males who are so indiscriminate/desperate - gay men are notoriously fussy, with the gym bodies and all that.

I know plenty of women who go crazy if they don't get sex. I'm not sure where this notion comes from.

From the fact that a small minority of women have a high sexual desire.  Estimates very from 5%-30%.  I'd say an average of those figures - about 20% - is accurate.  Something about 'contrarian evolution' or something like that - any predominant evolved social trait carries with it a counter-strategy that some fairly predictable minority will 'follow'.

What estimates? And what is 'high'? I remain skeptical...