Again, this is the disconnect that I find strange: That you would assert that a history of unethical behavior has “nothing to do with what you’re paying him for,” when assumably what you’re paying him for includes engaging in ethical behavior (i.e., not using unsafe parts, not overcharging you). But I respect your right to hold that position, of course, even though I find the position itself artificial and naive, and even though I now think your rebuilt transmission is more likely to fall out of your car than mine is.
Of course Diogenes is forthright enough to admit that he doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with (other people) cheating, and in fact militates against having moral expectations for anyone else. This is indeed the logical conclusion of those who militate against hypocrisy more than immorality.
However, there are plenty of people who would oppose this amoral worldview, and it behooves them to be sure that their outrage at hypocrisy is directed against Sanford’s immoral behavior, not the fact that Republicans have sexual ethics at all.
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because it’s one element of many and neither candidate was perfect in every way? Or maybe – and this might be crazy talk – because on balance they thought the adulterer would be the better president even if he was an adulterer and a hypocrite. The point is, they’re not the ones asserting it doesn’t matter at all.
Not the only factor, correct, and no one has asserted it is or should be. But then, as I’ve said multiple times, it’s very easy to overstate the importance of private ethics in the public realm; the oddity is you making the most extreme argument on the other end, which is that they don’t matter at all.
In what context would they give someon credit for NOT doing something? Wouldn’t that be insulting anyway – “Hey Jimmy, congratulations on not cheating on your wife! Way to go!” And since it’s completely irrelevant to you either way, why would you care if dems were “given value” for fidelity or not?
We always knew you yanks coveted our natural resources 
Translation:
“Nestor is for the defense of our natural resources”
“Mr South Carolina Governos, go find girls to other place!”.
That’s not what I said at all. I’m not saying there isn’t anything wrong with cheating, I’m only saying that it isn’t any of my business.
Personally, I’m very much a fan and a supporter of monogamy and fidelity. I haven’t so much as held hands with a woman other than my wife in 20 years. I do think marital infidelity is immoral. But not everything that’s immoral is my personal business.
Jodi, you of all people, as an attorney, should recognize that just because someone is “unethical” in one way, that is not evidence that they should be considered likely to be unethical in unrelated ways. That’s why we don’t allow you to give evidence that Defendant was a cheating husband when trying to prove he’s also a thieving worker.
In other relevant news to the thread :mad:, Mrs. Sanford was interviewed by the AP. During the interview, she stated that her husband had said he needed time away to do some writing (recall that’s what she said to people who were asking about him on Monday), and she specifically told him not to go near the Argentine woman.
She claims to have been surprised as a result to find out that’s where he went. Me, I’m guessing she wasn’t shocked at all, but I wouldn’t say “mad” was out of the realm of possibility. 
From her reaction over the last few days, I’d say “coldly furious” would fit the bill.
I really wish the guy had not had an affair. Not because of the morality or immorality of affairs … but because I find his AWOL behavior to be a worse offense, and it seems he is going to get a pass on it cuz everyone is so hung up on the affair. Every time I hear his R buddies crying about him resigning, it’s all about his sex life. I guess it’s OK to be shitty and irresponsible at your job, so long as you’re right by Jeebus.
Well, actually, here in South Carolina, the focus of the upset, and the calls for resignation, is the abandonment of the government without telling anyone where you went. Many of the Republican members of the legislature are upset about it, and so are some of the statewide office holders. I think that, if/when he’s forced to face the music on this, it will be the dereliction of duty that sinks him.
Well that’s encouraging. I guess the media is just having more fun putting the most righteous busybodies on the air/headlines.
DSYoungEsq, you, of all people, as an attorney, should recognize that most people don’t conduct their lives as if every evaluation they make must be up to the standards of admissibility in a court of law.
As it happens, and as I’ve already said umpteenth times, I fully acknoweldge that a lack of ethics in one area does not automatically translate to a lack of ethics in all areas. I am arguing against Dio’s assertion of the opposite: That a lack of ethics in one area has absolutely no relevance to a potential lack of ethics in another.
Your statement shows that you don’t understand why it is we don’t allow this sort of proof in court.
Dio is correct because the fact that a person violates one type of ethical rule simply has no bearing on what sort of moral compass they have elsewhere. There is no actual connection between the two, and there is no ability to say with any degree of certainty that there will be a correlation between the two. Since the fact that I’m a cheating bastard has no ability to be correlated with the possibility that I’m a thieving politician, you simply cannot link the two. At all.
Which is WHY we don’t let that sort of proof in court.
Ok, this thread has derailed in a serious argument about the difference, if any, between public and private ethics… pffff
Is there any picture of my fellow country woman? I suspect she is hot.
Ha! Right. 
You trying to school me on the rules of evidence – that’s funny. Your statement shows that you don’t understand that the high level of admissibility required in courts of law do not necessarily corrolate to the judgments and evaluations we make in our daily lives – nor necessarily should they.
Dio is not correct that ethical violations in one realm have “absolutely no bearing on what sort of moral compass the have elsewhere,” and frankly the disconnect there is pretty obvious. Why on earth would that be so? Why do you and he imagine there is some sort of barrier that would prevent a person who is dishonest, disrespectful, and personally selfish in one area of his life from being dishonest, disrespectufl, and personally selfish in another area? He might do so, but you can’t know with certainty, such that misbehavior in the personal realm should or must in every case be disregarded when considering whether the trust that person in the public realm.
Whether there is an “actual connection between the two” is dependent on the person and the situation; one person may act unethically in his personal life and nevertheless be completely ethical in his public life -but another person might not. Again, I am not syaing there is in every case a correlation, but I am at this point saying that the bald assertion that there is *never ever * a corrolation is stupid and naive. I don’t even consider this a terribly controversial position; I think most people with any degree of common sense understand it.
Incorrect. We don’t let that type of evidence in court because it isn’t admissible, not because it isn’t relevant.
It’s not admissable because it’s not probative.
This statement made me laugh. :smack:
WHY do you think it is “inadmissible?” Do you think we just up and decided one day, “hey, let’s make evidence of prior bad doings inadmissible”? There is a REASON why things that are inadmissible are inadmissible. In this case, it’s because the logic is faulty.
As is yours.
ETA: Or, what Dio said. 
What’s disturbing is that, from all appearances, Jodi does see it as somewhat arbitrary, and if s/he had things his/her way, it would be admissible after all.
Nobody here is saying that he can’t or won’t do so, but the presumption here is clearly different: Dio & co. assume one type of unethical behavior doesn’t automatically translate to other unethical behavior unless proven otherwise, and you clearly assume it does–hardly surprising since the knee-jerk impulse to judge with the broadest brush possible is SOP for the demonstratively self-righteous.
“A pubic hair has more pull than plow and oxen” Old Dominican proverb