Why is that completely subjective?
Thought it was pretty clear. Okay, I'll drop the completely, and just say that it's subjective. And what I mean by that is, that rational people can disagree on whether a 50 yr old bullying incident that occurred before someone finished puberty is worse than snorting cocaine in your early 20s while in college.
That is not subjective in the slightest. Snorting cocaine is a consumptive choice that harms no one but the individual who does it and is simply a health risk. Ethically it is hardly different that choosing to consume unhealthy food. Compare that to emotionally and physically abusing someone that contributes to years of trauma. You'd have to be vacuous follower of the worst kind of "social conservatism" (read: neanderthal logic) to believe that Romney's mistakes were worse than Obama's.
Again, this is subjective. And quit ASSuming stuff. I never said which one was worse. I simply said that Obama's drug use is fair game if Romney's high school actions are. Also, not sure if you're implying I'm a neanderthal social conservative for bringing this up, but you can simply check my social score on the political compass under my user name to see that isn't the case. Again, Take your partisan blinders off and read what people say before hitting 'post'.
Did I say anything about you? No. I'm saying that in no universe is this a subjective desicion, you'd have to possess a completely skewed moral compass that is based on some strange Christian/cult (read: Mormonism) dogma for Romney's sins to be viewed as less harmful. Morality isn't 100% subjective, friend. We don't live in a relativist world; there are ethical certainties.
