What does it have to do with social conservatism winning the day? It has to do with morality, and your willingness to disregard your own moral principles for the sake of social conservatism winning the day. Your rhetoric on virtue ethics and the importance of sexual morality is undermined by your consequentialism. — Sapientia

No, actually I'm quite annoyed by sexually immoral people from the past, and I tend to go so far as even lower the attention I pay to their thinking. Why do you think I don't like reading Heidegger? But what annoys me isn't only so much their behaviour - it's rather that they uphold that such behaviour is acceptable and should be permissible.

No, actually I'm quite annoyed by sexually immoral people from the past, and I tend to go so far as even lower the attention I pay to their thinking. Why do you think I don't like reading Heidegger? But what annoys me isn't only so much their behaviour - it's rather that they uphold that such behaviour is acceptable and should be permissible. — Agustino

I know full well that you find that sort of behaviour objectionable. But your annoyance doesn't mean as much when it's undermined by your actions (or your stated course of action, be it intended or hypothetical). The severity of which you would have us judge it ought to be contrasted with your willingness to vote for people known to have behaved in that way.

There are a number of other acts which, if committed by a candidate running for office, would mean that they'd lose my vote. And not all of them as severe as, say, murder. So, given that for you, this isn't one of them, then either this particular sort of behaviour isn't as bad as all of those sorts of behaviour which would lose my vote - meaning that it's quite a way further down the list in terms of severity and is not as severe as you often make it out to be - or your moral standards are much lower than mine.

I know full well that you find that sort of behaviour objectionable. But your annoyance doesn't mean as much when it's undermined by your actions. The severity of which you would have us judge it ought to be contrasted with your willingness to vote for people known to have behaved in that way.

There are a number of other acts which, if committed by a candidate running for office, would mean that they'd lose my vote. So, given that for you, this isn't one of them, then either this particular sort of behaviour isn't as bad as all of those sorts of behaviour which would lose my vote - meaning that it's not as severe as you make it out to be - or your moral standards are much lower than mine. — Sapientia

Not necessarily Sapientia. Again, I wouldn't encourage to vote for him if on the other side we didn't have a very dangerous progressive candidate - and if she wins, the culture of the US will be altered for quite a long time, in a direction that's not going to be good at all. So it's a necessary sacrifice, to prevent a greater evil.

Not necessarily Sapientia. Again, I wouldn't encourage to vote for him if on the other side we didn't have a very dangerous progressive candidate - and if she wins, the culture of the US will be altered for quite a long time, in a direction that's not going to be good at all. So it's a necessary sacrifice, to prevent a greater evil. — Agustino

Okay. But that still means that you'd be willing to sacrifice your moral principles regarding sexual morality by voting for someone you know has not only been accused of behaving in this way, but has actually been caught red handed describing himself behaving in this way, and downplays it as "locker room talk".

What effect do you believe that Hilary Clinton becoming president will bring about which is worse than someone such as Donald Trump becoming president, given what we know about the latter with regards to sexual morality, and given your stance on the importance of sexual morality, and virtue in general?

What effect do you believe that Hilary Clinton becoming president will bring about which is worse than someone such as Donald Trump becoming president, given what we know about the latter with regards to sexual morality, and given your stance on the importance of sexual morality? — Sapientia

First because this is about sexual morality - Bill Clinton. That in itself, getting such a man in the White House again, that is a bigger crime than anything Trump has ever done with regards to sexuality. Bill Clinton has raped multiple women - as Trump said, he even had to pay one in a lawsuite.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/13/clinton.usa1

Secondly - Clinton just is progressivism + war against Russia. Nothing could be worse. Supreme Court will be finished. We'll have even more identity politics. It will be a disaster.

First because this is about sexual morality - Bill Clinton. That in itself, getting such a man in the White House again, that is a bigger crime than anything Trump has ever done with regards to sexuality. Bill Clinton has raped multiple women - as Trump said, he even had to pay one in a lawsuite.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/13/clinton.usa1 — Agustino

That is slander, as per the legal definition, as well as speculation. He has not been convicted of rape. Under the settlement, Clinton didn't admit any wrongdoing or apologize and simply agreed to make a cash settlement to Mrs. Jones. Although I do agree that that, as well as the other allegations, and the Lewinsky scandal, are cause for concern. But then, so are similar allegations against Trump, including his alleged rape of a 13 year-old girl - of which there is a lawsuit and upcoming hearing. So, you are guilty of double standards. And Bill Clinton isn't even running for president, unlike Trump.

Secondly - Clinton just is progressivism + war against Russia. Nothing could be worse. Supreme Court will be finished. We'll have even more identity politics. It will be a disaster. — Agustino

Your war against Russia comment is ludicrous. So, setting that aside, what is it specifically about Clinton's progressivism and identity politics that you think is worse than Trump's sexual immorality? And, if it is something other than sexual morality, can you please clarify and confirm its importance in comparison to sexual morality? Because, from past comments of yours, you've given me the impression that sexual morality is exceptionally important - almost as if it were the be-all and end-all - but since the topic of Trump has come up, you have been making exceptions.

That is slander, as per the legal definition, as well as speculation. He has not been convicted of rape. Under the settlement, Clinton didn't admit any wrongdoing or apologize and simply agreed to make a cash settlement to Mrs. Jones. Although I do agree that that, as well as the other allegations, and the Lewinsky scandal, are cause for concern. But then, so are similar allegations against Trump, including his alleged rape of a 13 year-old girl - of which there is a lawsuit and upcoming hearing. So, you are guilty of double standards. And Bill Clinton isn't even running for president, unlike Trump. — Sapientia

Oh common give me a break... if he hadn't actually raped her, why did he pay her, what in today's money, would equal to more than 1 million dollars? Do you just throw away 1 million for nothing?Who did Trump pay in order to settle a rape accusation? (and by the way, most of the accusations against him are recent). Bill Clinton may not be running, but he's certainly going to the White House if Hillary wins.

And, if it is something other than sexual morality, can you please clarify and confirm it's importance in comparison to sexual morality? — Sapientia

Yes, it is sexual morality, amongst many other things. Trump himself probably is sexually immoral, but he will not promote this same attitude for everyone else - through for example the appointment of conservative justices to the Supreme Court. Trump will not promote identity politics. Trump will take a tough stance on ISIS. Trump will take a tough stance on illegal immigration. Trump will take a tough stance on abortion. And so forth. These things are very important. If we vote for Crooked, then they're gone - for everyone else. If we vote for Trump, they may be gone for him personally, but certainly not for the rest of us.

Bill Clinton. That in itself, getting such a man in the White House again, that is a bigger crime than anything Trump has ever done with regards to sexuality. — Agustino

So, Bill Clinton needs a roof over his head -- the white house is as good a roof as any.

if she wins, the culture of the US will be altered for quite a long time, in a direction that's not going to be good at all. — Agustino

Calm down. Cultures are changing all the time. The course of history is being changed by the minute. Hillary can neither usher in Utopia or usher it out. (This applies to a Trump presidency too.)

Perhaps a Clinton + Clinton administration will change things, and whether this is good or not depends on who you are. A more liberal court, and one that stays liberal for a while, is the worst outcome that Clinton could produce. Unless there is a plague among the conservative justices sitting there now, there isn't anything dramatic she can do. Same for Trump.

What is it that a more liberal court could do that would affect YOU materially?

Oh common give me a break... if he hadn't actually raped her, why did he pay her, what in today's money, would equal to more than 1 million dollars? Do you just throw away 1 million for nothing? Who did Trump pay in order to settle a rape accusation? (and by the way, most of the accusations against him are recent). Bill Clinton may not be running, but he's certainly going to the White House if Hillary wins. — Agustino

I said it was cause for concern, didn't I? I haven't denied the allegation, but that is all it ever was. It hasn't been proven in a court of law. That is a fact. The fact remains that Bill Clinton has never been convicted of rape. Why did she agree to the settlement? One could speculate on that, too. Perhaps her case wasn't as strong as one might assume.

Yes, it is sexual morality, amongst many other things. Trump himself probably is sexually immoral, but he will not promote this same attitude for everyone else - — Agustino

He already has! He dismissed it as locker room talk!

Perhaps a Clinton + Clinton administration will change things, and whether this is good or not depends on who you are. A more liberal court, and one that stays liberal for a while, is the worst outcome that Clinton could produce. — Bitter Crank

And letting ISIS thrive. And continuing illegal immigration. And continuing the focus on identity politics. And continuing political correctness. And so forth. Tragic.

What is it that a more liberal court could do that would affect YOU materially? — Bitter Crank

Simple: create a culture which is more permissible towards sexual immorality - that is harmful for all of us, not just for me.

I first encountered Eagleton through his scathing review of The God Delusion, Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching. Actually it was that review that got me started on forums, because I joined the then-Dawkins forum to debate the Dawkins acolytes. Then I got Eagleton's 'Holy Terror', which I really didn't understand at all; The Meaning of Life, which I did; and most recently Culture and the Death of God, and I read quite a few of his reviews. I think the Meaning of Life was probably the better of them.

But I have formed the view that the Western cultural tradition doesn't stand up without the spiritual dimension that had been provided by Christianity (which is by no means to say that the institution of Christianity is an unalloyed good); and I think his Culture and the Death of God is an insightful commentary on that issue. But it's a dense and a difficult read.

One of my relatives really likes Scruton, I might see if he has the Meaning of Conservatism, thank you for the recommendation.

I said it was cause for concern, didn't I? I haven't denied the allegation, but that is all it ever was. It hasn't been proven in a court of law. The fact remains that Bill Clinton has never been convicted of rape. Why did she agree to the settlement? One could speculate on that, too. Perhaps her case wasn't as strong as one might assume. — Sapientia

Oh common... what would you have done my dear? If the guy offered you 1 million bucks would you not have agreed to settle, even if he had raped you? You have to think from the perspective of that woman. Probably not very talented, not very smart, not having a bright future ahead. She could never reasonably hope to make that kinda money, and she had already been raped. Nothing she could do - it had already happened. Might as well take that dough. Think about what her family would advise her - they'd probably be like "You crazy?? 850K? Take it, what else are you hoping for!" If she had refused to settle, worst would have happened (for Clinton) was him getting to jail, and a much lesser compensation - plus the risk for her of losing the case, given his political influence.

He already has! He dismissed it as locker room talk! — Sapientia

No he hasn't. He actually said it's wrong and he regrets saying it. He has also said he has never behaved like that. He furthermore pointed out that folks in today's culture talk about things like that all the time - almost shamelessly. Which again is something that the hypocritical media says nothing about.

Oh common... what would you have done my dear? If the guy offered you 1 million bucks would you not have agreed to settle, even if he had raped you? You have to think from the perspective of that woman. Probably not very talented, not very smart, not having a bright future ahead. She could never reasonably hope to make that kinda money, and she had already been raped. Nothing she could do - it had already happened. Might as well take that dough. Think about what her family would advise her - they'd probably be like "You crazy?? 850K? Take it, what else are you hoping for!" If she had refused to settle, worst would have happened (for Clinton) was him getting to jail, and a much lesser compensation - plus the risk for her of losing the case, given his political influence. — Agustino

What would I have done? If I answer that question, will it make any of this anything other than speculation? No.

And, if Trump settles in the lawsuit I referenced, or any other such lawsuit, then you will apply the same standard of judgement, yes? Or will you just find another way around it?

No he hasn't. He actually said it's wrong and he regrets saying it. He has also said he has never behaved like that. He furthermore pointed out that folks in today's culture talk about things like that all the time - almost shamelessly. Which again is something that the hypocritical media says nothing about. — Agustino

Pah! There's that double standard again. Oh common...

He downplayed its significance by dismissing it as locker room talk, and he is obviously going to try to wriggle out of it, but come on... he was showing his true colours. He's a pig.

And, if Trump settles in the lawsuit I referenced, or any other such lawsuit, then you will apply the same standard of judgement, yes? Or will you just find another way around it? — Sapientia

Yes, I will then consider him the equal of Bill Clinton. I'd still choose him over Bill if I had to pick between who is going to the White House, because at least Trump is sorrounded by a social conservative network, and will do more good for the country than Bill et al.

Pah! There's that double standard again. Oh common... — Sapientia

I'm not seeing it. Bill hasn't said he regrets raping. Furthermore, there is quite a lot more evidence with regards to Bill than with regards to Trump on the subject of rape.

Where do you live and and what nationality are you? I'm curious.

I'm originally from Eastern Europe but I've been living in the UK until very recently. What makes you curious?

I'm not seeing it. — Agustino

The double standard is that you take an unproven allegation as truth when it comes to Bill, but with Trump, when it comes straight from the horses mouth, you lap up his denials and apologetics.

B-but he said that he has never behaved like that... Oh common...

Bill hasn't said he regrets raping. — Agustino

Well, durr. Of course not. It's an unproven allegation which he has always denied.

Just curious as to where your perspective has come from. I sometimes can't tell if you're playing the devil's advocate or are just wildly self-deceived about certain topics like morality and politics.

The double standard is that you take an unproven allegation as truth when it comes to Bill, but with Trump, when it comes straight from the horses mouth, you lap up his denials and apologetics. He said that he has never behaved like that? Oh common... — Sapientia

>:O But the fact that he has paid 850K to settle a rape accusation makes him 98% guilty in my mind already. For all practical purposes that is all the proof that I require. That's why I said I'd put Trump on the same footing if he had settled a rape case for such money. (the laughing face is regarding your "oh common" imitation btw :P )

wildly self-deceived about certain topics like morality and politics. — Heister Eggcart

This is very vague. What do you really mean?

This is very vague. What do you really mean? — Agustino

But the fact that he has paid 850K to settle a rape accusation makes him 98% guilty in my mind already. For all practical purposes that is all the proof that I require. — Agustino

Like this. You sound like an armchair judge who's never been outside to see the light of day. Perhaps you just don't understand how rape is perceived and understood in the US, I don't know.

Like this. You sound like an armchair judge who's never been outside to see the light of day. Perhaps you just don't understand how rape is perceived and understood in the US, I don't know. — Heister Eggcart

So you're telling me that if you were Bill Clinton, you'd settle a rape accusation for 850K USD, knowing very well that the woman is just playing you and you have never done anything wrong, nor raped her?

Yep. Welcome to America, UK immigrant O:)

Can you tell me why you would do that? What would be your motivation for doing that?

Well, he certainly wouldn't do it if it was as obvious as you seem to think it is that doing it means he is definitely guilty.


No one but Bill Clinton can know what was in his mind. But you would presume, no doubt...
:-}

Same reason Trump settled all of his cases. It's all about image. Even for a "normal" person such as myself, were someone to accuse me of something I never did, I'd go to great lengths to make sure he/she would stop hollering, because even if I know I'm innocent, along with the court, there will forever be stigma there from the onset of the accusation.

Rape is a tricky crime because, by and large, most cases turn up very little evidence for or against what did or did not happen. Because of this, our justice system has a hard time convicting people. However, and in most cases concerning powerful people, there has arisen legion upon legion of gold digging whores in this country that know that fact, and will gamble on putting someone in the middle where they can't get out, knowing that they're innocent. They just want the money. That's the bottom line.

Again John, clarify for me, what possible motivation could there be for paying someone close to 1 million bucks for something you hadn't even done? Stop being sly like a snake and hiding behind platitudes. Obviously he wasn't convicted. This isn't what this is about though. This is about what is - beyond reasonable doubt - likely to be the case, and we both know that.

Same reason Trump settled all of his cases. It's all about image. Even for a "normal" person such as myself, were someone to accuse me of something I never did, I'd go to great lengths to make sure he/she would stop hollering, because even if I know I'm innocent, along with the court, there will forever be stigma there from the onset of the accusation. — Heister Eggcart

And if you pay them money, the stigma will disappear?

However, and in most cases concerning powerful people, there has arisen legion upon legion of gold digging whores in this country that know that fact, and will gamble on putting someone in the middle where they can't get out, knowing that they're innocent. They just want the money. That's the bottom line. — Heister Eggcart

Exactly - so do you give in and give them the money? Do you give in, essentially to a terrorist's demands? If you do, then you're only adding fuel to the fire - you're encouraging this sort of activity. Other whores will look and will see - "oh look, she got one million bucks! Let me go to Bill and bump my ass on him a little, maybe I get it too!"

Again John, clarify for me, what possible motivation could there be for paying someone close to 1 million bucks for something you hadn't even done? — Agustino

I agree with Heister's analysis. But people may respond very differently to such stressful situations, so it's best to avoid jumping to conclusions based on generalizing your own feelings about it.

People differ on how they want to tackle the problem of being wrongly accused. Some don't pay but then risk having the case go to court and being convicted incorrectly (which happens a lot). Or, they do pay, which is merely an attempt at throwing the whole thing under the rug. Many of the more high profile settlements include restrictions on what may be said in future, thus in part ensuring a certain degree of finality to the ordeal. So, for Bill Clinton, it makes a lot of sense to pay around $1 million dollars over, perhaps, dozens of millions in some lengthy court case when he already knows he's innocent, but still has to go through the sifting of zero evidence - just to make sure.

Again, for important and famous people, these sort of allegations are commonplace because our justice system allows for it. Sometimes it's a good thing, usually it's not, though.

Agustino, Trump settled with his ex-wife over a rape accusation. A sexual assault charge by another woman was also withdrawn after Trump settled a parallel case with the woman's husband. It's in the article I linked to before.

So to be consistent you must either claim that both Trump and Clinton have shown themselves guilty of rape or claim that settlements are not an indication of actual wrongdoing.

The latter would stink of backtracking. Both undermine much of your "Trump is morally better than Clinton" argument.