There is absolutely nothing wrong with JillGat’s question. Someone of national stature who has never had an intimate relationship may not be one of the weighty questions of our time, but it’s a mild curiosity that is undoubtedly worth a few electrons spinning around on the Interwebs.
If Quartz is so uptight about the right of people to hold opinions for which they cannot be criticized, then there should be nothing wrong whatsoever with holding the opinions that Nader is a crackpot, his run for the presidency is nothing more than a massage of his whorish ego, and his inability/disinterest in having any kind of intimate relationship is further evidence that he’s a weirdo.
And who the fuck do you think you are, Quartz, to disagree with me (and apparently JillGat) to say differently?
How about you go back to school and learn to read? Criticising the opinion is fine. Not respecting the right of someone to hold an opinion is not fine.
Anyone seriously considering voting for Ralph Nader in a close election has poor judgment and is very likely a zealot or an idiot. (Someone could vote for Nader and not be a zealot or idiot: I wouldn’t blame Nader’s mom for voting for him, for example.) People have a perfect right to be zealots or idiots. That doesn’t mean calling them names and going to lengths to convince them of their serious error is anything more than impolite in the first case, and a moral obligation in the second.
Actually, asking if someone has had a girlfriend is quite innocuous. Nobody is even asking if he’s had sex.
I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if Nader had a personality disorder along the lines of narcissism. I think a psychological inability to empathize with other people is a relevant and undesirable trait for a manager of a Denny’s, to say nothing of a political leader. We don’t need a president who would be thrown to fits of rage if anyone dares disagree, regardless of their political views.
Digging dirt or not, I had no idea that Ralph Nader has no history of any sort of intimate relationship. I’m not going to use this bit of information against him, I just found this thread (pointed to in the OP) interesting, and I thank JillGat for asking it.
And i still don’t get what the pitting is about. fucking hypersensitive.
I don’t get what the pitting is about and I don’t get what the problem with my using the word “inexplicable” is about. Jaysus. Guess I need to hire an editor for my GQ questions.
Ralph Nader has made numerous, fantastic contributions as a consumer advocate and activist, no doubt about it, and I applaud him. But I think he’d make a scary, unpredictable president because he doesn’t seem human.
I’m not looking for dirt. Or maybe I am, as at least somebody with dirt would have more in common with the common man/woman out there than someone who has never had a personal relationship of any kind; clean *or * dirty.
That’s the only thing I wanted to establish.
Back to the projection of your own personal beefs, folks.
How is it dirt? It seems that JillGat would see an intimate relationship with someone of either sex as a positive. And it is just not possible to prove that there never has been an intimate relationship with anyone – can’t prove a negative and all that.
Therefor it is impossible to dig up any sexual dirt on Nader from Jillgat’s POV.
Um…so people can’t express a general opinion/question without getting pitted?
Quartz, you say ‘And so what if he doesn’t have a sex life?’
And…so what if JillGat questions that?
I’ve seen a few pits that seem deserved, a few that might seem like an overreaction or misunderstanding, and a few that seem as if the pitter is just looking for something to pit or gripe about. I have no problem with your posts usually, but I don’t see the problem you have here.
I voted for Clinton twice and when Kerry was running for election, I brought up concerns about him. Well, I got in an off-board discussion with a friend about Clinton’s marijuana usage and while we both remember Clinton saying that he didn’t inhale, only I remembered him stating later that he admitted to inhaling. I posted a GQ question about it and took a bit of a hit in the thread and it required more explanation than it should have.
It felt like I was “excused” because of the extraneous details, but frankly, I don’t see why it should have to come to that. Whether I was for or against Clinton or Kerry shouldn’t change the facts or the answers to the question.
Zigzackly! It struck me as merely a tangential matter of mild curiosity. Some- heh, many - questions on the Dope are along the lines of "I was idly wondering … "
I’m confused as to what exactly means JillGat doesn’t respect the right of her friend to hold an opinion? I mean, if she didn’t think her friend’s opinion was worth something, why would she being trying to change it?
And generally digging for dirt in my opinion conists of something more than “asking people on a message board”. Perhaps hiring someone to tail the guy. Going through his trash. Reading all his public records in the hope of finding something not right. But asking people? Hardly. I don’t believe i’d particularly vouch for your own political opinions (though certainly i’d uphold your right to have them) if you consider asking people about politicians to be a dirty business.
I agree. If true, it is something rather unusual about the man.
Let’s say I ran for president, and it came out that I do not believe in God. You might say, “Who cares? What does it matter?” And perhaps it doesn’t matter, but a lot of people think that it does.
I would guess that there are more people who do not believe in God than who are totally uninterested in having an intimate relationship.