America - The Official Thread

[Dennisch]

Sorry, I am from the Netherlands and didnt hit a paywall? Did you use the link directly? Why is someone in the UK confronted with a paywall and I am not?

It means you already clicked on one of the options. I get the same message as Famine.

 

[Famine]

Dont try to insult me please. Do not suggest I use these rolemodels for my kids.

I didn't. I asked you a question that you haven't answered.

You missed the point. You stated it doesn matter how bad a rolemodel is. I was stating it does definately.

If it does then you can answer the question I asked you. You've avoided it once with faux outrage and pretending I've insulted you. Let's see if you avoid it again...

 

[Johnnypenso]

I dont either, but isnt President an aspiration that would make you proud? Perhaps I should have used another word then encourage.
For that to happen one likely has to be inspired by one. In that hypothetical would you think that Trump is something a child should aspire to?
Children discover their own rolemodels growing up, albeit an athlete, moviestar, celebrity, worldleader etc.

Why do I need an external source to encourage my son to do anything? He has a father, he has a grandfather, he has uncles and he has extended family and my friends. I'm just not into idolizing people whose lives I only know through the filter of mainstream media. Individual accomplishments of course can be pointed to as examples of what can be achieved by people who are committed, work hard and stay the course but I hold the effort and result up as the role model, not the person. Since I'm pretty sure you won't consider it a full answer unless I specifically comment on (and preferably denounce) Trump, the answer is no, I would not point to Trump as a role model to aspire to. Same goes for Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Trudeau, Harper, Martin, Chretien or anyone else. Not even Ghandi. Their individual achievements and the things they stood for that I agree with on the other hand, may be good examples of commitment, effort and results that someone can aspire to.

 

[PocketZeven]

I didn't. I asked you a question that you haven't answered.

If it does then you can answer the question I asked you. You've avoided it once with faux outrage and pretending I've insulted you. Let's see if you avoid it again...

Uh yes you did. You explicitely suggested I recommended one of these as rolemodels to my son hid in a question. And the outrage isnt Faux. I have 2 children.
That is dick move. But I will look past it, as perhaps you dont have children yourself.

So which would you recommend to your son to admire as a person and follow in the footsteps of then? The rapist, the murderer or the two philanderers? .

The answer is none, but that wasnt the point. I already stated I was using an extreme example to explain my point of view that "how" bad does matter.
So what is your answer to my question if Einstein, shakespeare?

Why do I need an external source to encourage my son to do anything? He has a father, he has a grandfather, he has uncles and he has extended family and my friends. I'm just not into idolizing people whose lives I only know through the filter of mainstream media. Individual accomplishments of course can be pointed to as examples of what can be achieved by people who are committed, work hard and stay the course but I hold the effort and result up as the role model, not the person. Since I'm pretty sure you won't consider it a full answer unless I specifically comment on (and preferably denounce) Trump, the answer is no, I would not point to Trump as a role model to aspire to. Same goes for Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Trudeau, Harper, Martin, Chretien or anyone else. Not even Ghandi. Their individual achievements and the things they stood for that I agree with on the other hand, may be good examples of commitment, effort and results that someone can aspire to.

I admire that. But children pick their own rolemodels. For better or worse. What if your child states he consideres Trudeau as his rolemodel. Would you try to change his mind? How would you feel? My son is too young and me and his grandfather are his rolemodels. His only obsession is dinosaurs at the moment, but that could quite change when he grows up and starts to admire other people.

Do you differentiate between rolemodels and people someone admire?

edit: added comment

 

[Famine]

Uh yes you did. You explicitely suggested I recommended one of these as rolemodels to my son hid in a question.

No, I didn't:

So which would you recommend to your son to admire as a person and follow in the footsteps of then? The rapist, the murderer or the two philanderers?

The answer is none, but that wasnt the point.

And the answer is "none" because... it doesn't matter how bad they are as role models, because they are bad role models.

Which is the point.

And the outrage isnt Faux. I have 2 children.
That is dick move. But I will look past it, as perhaps you dont have children yourself.

I have two children. It's not relevant to that fact that you've created (and been called on) your own outrage from something that is not in any way offensive as a way to avoid answering the question.

You ranked four people by your perception of the severity of their crimes, in order to demonstrate that the amount of badness is relevant to their status as a role model. Yet when asked which you would recommend as a role model, you answered none - precisely because how bad they are as a role model is not relevant as they are bad role models. Again, see the curate's egg.

You've now proven this point to yourself.

So what is your answer to my question if Einstein, shakespeare

I would not recommend either as a role model.

 

[ryzno]

Uh yes you did. You explicitely suggested I recommended one of these as rolemodels to my son hid in a question. And the outrage isnt Faux. I have 2 children.
That is dick move. But I will look past it, as perhaps you dont have children yourself.



The answer is none, but that wasnt the point. I already stated I was using an extreme example to explain my point of view that "how" bad does matter.
So what is your answer to my question if Einstein, shakespeare

Why do you think everyone wants their child to become President or look up to him? I'll be happy when he gets a job period lol.
Let's be honest though the government is a honey pot of liers, THEY ALL LIE.
Like JP said, most people use their families to show their children a positive influence.
My son looks up to and wants to be like me. I've never pressured him to be like me he naturally wants to.
I don't want him looking up to government officials or celebrities. They are all fake and aren't the person they portray on TV. Which is something I think all parents need to teach their children.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, I didn't:


And the answer is "none" because... it doesn't matter how bad they are as role models, because they are bad role models.

Which is the point.

I have two children. It's not relevant to that fact that you've created (and been called on) your own outrage from something that is not in any way offensive as a way to avoid answering the question.

You ranked four people by your perception of the severity of their crimes, in order to demonstrate that the amount of badness is relevant to their status as a role model. Yet when asked which you would recommend as a role model, you answered none - precisely because how bad they are as a role model is not relevant as they are bad role models. Again, see the curate's egg.

You've now proven this point to yourself.

I would not recommend either as a role model.

What you said was offensive to me. I just told you 2 times.

You are twisting the words to your advantage. Many would consider Einstein, who is a philanderer, a good rolemodel. Yet according to your statement all philanderers based on crimes committed should be judged the same.

So if I cheated once on girlfriend long ago, then therefore I am a bad rolemodel. My point is it matters how does matter in my opinion. Just for the fact that in my opinion I am a good rolemodel to my son.

If you let a single crime or vice define you or others as a person, I think you see the world too black and white.

PS. If you listed the names as I did my answer would be different. Yes I wouldnt mind if my son would admire Bill Clinton. As that crime or flaw does not define my perception as a person.

Why do you think everyone wants their child to become President or look up to him? I'll be happy when he gets a job period lol.
Let's be honest though the government is a honey pot of liers, THEY ALL LIE.
Like JP said, most people use their families to show their children a positive influence.
My son looks up to and wants to be like me. I've never pressured him to be like me he naturally wants to.
I don't want him looking up to government officials or celebrities. They are all fake and aren't the person they portray on TV. Which is something I think all parents need to teach their children.

I wasnt suggesting that every child should or even pressured. But I was suggesting a President and most celebrities and athletes do function as rolemodels and should act accordingly when in the public eye or in a public function. I know a lot of politicians lie occasionally. But you really need to put Trump's lying in perspective. Even you and I occasionally lie, but do you lie as often as Trump? According to Politifact his Statements are lies 68% of the time.

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

There comes a time that perhaps a child wants to be the next Bill gates or Steve Jobs or maybe a local businessowner or athlete on his/her own.

edit: reaction to @ryzno

 

[Famine]

What you said was offensive to me. I just told you 2 times.

You free to take offence at anything for any reason at any time. But your quoted reason for finding it offensive requires you to not actually read what was typed - or pretend it said something else.

You are twisting the words to your advantage.

Nowhere have any words been twisted. Except by you when you took offence at something by not reading it or pretending it said something else. And below:

Many would consider Einstein, who is a philanderer, a good rolemodel. Yet according to your statement all philanderers based on crimes committed should be judged the same.

I didn't make any statement about Einstein's suitability as a role model based on his philandering. I simply said I would not recommend him - nor Shakespeare - as a role model to my daughters.

So if I cheated once on girlfriend long ago, then therefore I am a bad rolemodel.

I would not recommend my daughters, should they somehow come to the circumstances where they might, date you. I wouldn't need to though.

If you let a single crime or vice define you or others as a person, I think you see the world too black and white.

If I had a penny for every time a serial adulterer had, the first time they were caught, said "oh it was just this one time"...

PS. If you listed the names as I did my answer would be different. Yes I wouldnt mind if my son would admire Bill Clinton. As that crime or flaw does not define my perception as a person.

Just so we're clear, Clinton carried out an adulterous affair with a junior office worker over a period of 18 months, showering her with gifts (among other things), to the point where his own advisers tried to move her out of her job to keep them apart, and then lied on national television about it, and kept lying, for nine months, until he was caught by physical evidence of the affair. The Senate decided that this constituted perjury and tried to impeach him but failed - although he was later convicted of a civil charge of contempt of court for his "misleading testimony", resulting in his own licence to practice law being suspended.

"A single crime"...

 

[Johnnypenso]

I admire that. But children pick their own rolemodels. For better or worse. What if your child states he consideres Trudeau as his rolemodel. Would you try to change his mind? How would you feel? My son is too young and me and his grandfather are his rolemodels. His only obsession is dinosaurs at the moment, but that could quite change when he grows up and starts to admire other people.

Do you differentiate between rolemodels and people someone admire?

edit: added comment

I'm not sure what part of my response you didn't understand. You have this habit of simply ignoring what I say and imposing your own version of the world on my life. I don't know if you do this with other posters I don't pay enough attention. If you read my post above you'll see it answers all of the questions you posed here. Since you'll likely just ignore that and accuse me of not answering your question I'll answer about Trudeau specifically. I do not think he is a good role model because IMO his position was achieved for two basic reasons. Who his father was primarily, and his physical appeal. He has not lived a life of public service, he was not successful in the business world, he is not any kind of intellectual or academic standout, he has not created or built anything of note. There is very little in his life I can point to my son and say, "Here is some action or series of decisions Trudeau took that you can emulate in your own life to be successful and make you a better person or more successful". The only advice I can give him on Trudeau would be, "sorry I wasn't Prime Minister so you'll have to work a lot harder than Justin if that's your goal. Sometimes people get ahead by the luck of the draw. Suck it up". My son is handsome though so 1 out of 2 isn't bad. Hopefully that doesn't make me a pedophile like Donald Trump.

Of course, having said that, it belies the earlier point I was trying to make. I try very hard not to idolize people, I don't consider myself a member of the cult of personality. I respect and admire decisions, actions, thoughts and ideas put forth by individuals big and small. As best I could I passed that on to my son. Don't worship the man. Instead appreciate, admire and learn from the action, the idea, the sacrifice. You can see this in my comments on Trump. I recognize and have stated on several occasions that he's a deeply flawed human being. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the good that he has done and doesn't mean I have to simply automatically disagree with all of his policy positions simply because he's somewhat of a despicable person at times.

 

[PocketZeven]

You free to take offence at anything for any reason at any time. But your quoted reason for finding it offensive requires you to not actually read what was typed - or pretend it said something else.

Nowhere have any words been twisted. Except by you when you took offence at something by not reading it or pretending it said something else. And below:

I didn't make any statement about Einstein's suitability as a role model based on his philandering. I simply said I would not recommend him - nor Shakespeare - as a role model to my daughters.

I would not recommend my daughters, should they somehow come to the circumstances where they might, date you. I wouldn't need to though.

If I had a penny for every time a serial adulterer had, the first time they were caught, said "oh it was just this one time"...

Just so we're clear, Clinton carried out an adulterous affair with a junior office worker over a period of 18 months, showering her with gifts (among other things), to the point where his own advisers tried to move her out of her job to keep them apart, and then lied on national television about it, and kept lying, for nine months, until he was caught by physical evidence of the affair. The Senate decided that this constituted perjury and tried to impeach him but failed - although he was later convicted of a civil charge of contempt of court for his "misleading testimony", resulting in his own licence to practice law being suspended.

"A single crime"...

It was offensive to suggest I would consider recommending a murderer as a rolemodel. Newsflash I wouldnt.

You made a statement based on peoples crimes or vices. Havent you admired a person in your life?

Yes Clinton is actually someone I admire. Because I dont think it doesnt define him as a person. I admire almost every Potus.
The exception is Trump because of him being a bad rolemodel on a much higher level.

 

[Famine]

It was offensive to suggest I would consider recommending a murderer as a rolemodel. Newsflash I wouldnt.

Newsflash: I didn't say you would. I asked which person of the murderer, philanderers and rapist you would consider, and, once you'd got over the feigned outrage and actually answered the question, you said it would be none.

Thus I confirmed that you wouldn't recommend a murderer as a role model, which is the opposite of your claim that I suggested you would.

However, your later statements suggest that if it was just a single murder...

You made a statement based on peoples crimes or vices.

Did I? Which statement was that?

Havent you admired a person in your life?

I tend to admire actions, rather than people.

Yes Clinton is actually someone I admire. Because I dont think it doesnt define him as a person.

You don't think shagging your secretary for 18 months and lying about it until physical evidence caught you out defines someone as a person?

I admire almost every Potus.
The exception is Trump because of him being a bad rolemodel on a much higher level.

You've already established by your own statements that the level of badness is not relevant to someone's status as a bad role model.

 

[huskeR32]

but the end result of all of this ISN'T that CNN is banned from the Press Pool, the way that FOX was treated during the Obama Administration

You have a source for this claim? I can't find anything, anywhere, saying this actually happened. I did find a few articles, though, saying that false rumors of this circulated among conservatives for a while.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not sure what part of my response you didn't understand. You have this habit of simply ignoring what I say and imposing your own version of the world on my life. I don't know if you do this with other posters I don't pay enough attention. If you read my post above you'll see it answers all of the questions you posed here. Since you'll likely just ignore that and accuse me of not answering your question I'll answer about Trudeau specifically. I do not think he is a good role model because IMO his position was achieved for two basic reasons. Who his father was primarily, and his physical appeal. He has not lived a life of public service, he was not successful in the business world, he is not any kind of intellectual or academic standout, he has not created or built anything of note. There is very little in his life I can point to my son and say, "Here is some action or series of decisions Trudeau took that you can emulate in your own life to be successful and make you a better person or more successful". The only advice I can give him on Trudeau would be, "sorry I wasn't Prime Minister so you'll have to work a lot harder than Justin if that's your goal. Sometimes people get ahead by the luck of the draw. Suck it up". My son is handsome though so 1 out of 2 isn't bad. Hopefully that doesn't make me a pedophile like Donald Trump.

Of course, having said that, it belies the earlier point I was trying to make. I try very hard not to idolize people, I don't consider myself a member of the cult of personality. I respect and admire decisions, actions, thoughts and ideas put forth by individuals big and small. As best I could I passed that on to my son. Don't worship the man. Instead appreciate, admire and learn from the action, the idea, the sacrifice. You can see this in my comments on Trump. I recognize and have stated on several occasions that he's a deeply flawed human being. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the good that he has done and doesn't mean I have to simply automatically disagree with all of his policy positions simply because he's somewhat of a despicable person at times.

I asked the questions, because we perhaps have different definitions of rolemodels here. Or i am using the incorrect definition. I did some searching and I think there is a slight difference in the definition of rolemodel in my language and in english.
the dutch definition (translated by google) defines it as:

A role model is a person or a type of person or personality who fulfills an example function for a certain group of people. One can think of a certain actor, ruler, artist, politician, resistance hero, guru etc. 'Role model' is synonymous with 'example', but 'role model' is preferable, because that is less ambiguous.

In english it seems slightly different:

a person who someone admires and whose behaviour they try to copy

My usage was based on the supposed "rolemodel" to fulfill his/her example function. Any public figure has a responsibility to conduct themselves as a rolemodel. That doesnt mean a person/child would see this person as his only "rolemodel" or idolize or try and copy.

Thats why I was slightly confused when you said your were your kids "rolemodel". In my language it is more often used for people in public functions or celebrities. We differentiate the "example function" and rolemodel, while In english it is probably one and the same?

You've already established by your own statements that the level of badness is not relevant to someone's status as a bad role model.

I am not "feigning" anything. I'll just leave your opinion as is. You dont seem to recognise when you are being offensive, yet are eager to deal out penalties when you feel like it.

I already established an opinion of my own, that it does matter how bad someones vice or flaw is to define if he is a bad or good rolemodel.

 

[Famine]

You dont seem to recognise when you are being offensive

You free to take offence at anything for any reason at any time. But your quoted reason for finding it offensive requires you to not actually read what was typed - or pretend it said something else.

Taking offence at something is not the same as someone being offensive.

You've chosen to read something that wasn't there, and then you've chosen to take offence at that, somehow making it into my problem. It's not - and continuing to do so instead of reading what was there all along can only be deliberately fake outrage.

I already established an opinion of my own, that it does matter how bad someones vice or flaw is to define if he is a bad or good rolemodel.

And yet you already agreed that on your scale of perceived badness from philanderer to cultist/murderer, all were a bad role model (to the point you took great offence at the suggestion [which you invented] that you would consider any to be a good role model for your kids) - so you've agreed that it doesn't matter.

In my opinion it does. As an exaggeration: Cosby is worse the Clinton and I think Charles Manson is worse then Trump. All perhaps bad rolemodels, but 1 definately worse then the other.

So which would you recommend to your son to admire as a person and follow in the footsteps of then? The rapist, the murderer or the two philanderers? Hey son, I don't think you should try and model yourself on someone who formed a cult and went on a killing spree. Be more like the guy who used his position to gain access to young women so he could drug and molest them instead.

And that's the point. It doesn't matter how bad a role model someone is if they are a bad role model.

Dont try to insult me please. Do not suggest I use these rolemodels for my kids.

I didn't. I asked you a question that you haven't answered.

If it does then you can answer the question I asked you. You've avoided it once with faux outrage and pretending I've insulted you. Let's see if you avoid it again...

The answer is none, but that wasnt the point.

Still, feel free to continue arguing against yourself and your own answers.

 

[PocketZeven]

Taking offence at something is not the same as someone being offensive.

You've chosen to read something that wasn't there, and then you've chosen to take offence at that, somehow making it into my problem. It's not - and continuing to do so instead of reading what was there all along can only be deliberately fake outrage.

And yet you already agreed that on your scale of perceived badness from philanderer to cultist/murderer, all were a bad role model (to the point you took great offence at the suggestion [which you invented] that you would consider any to be a good role model for your kids) - so you've agreed that it doesn't matter.





Still, feel free to continue arguing against yourself and your own answers.

Congratulations on applying binary thought in a discussion with gray areas.

 

[Famine]

Congratulations on applying binary thought in a discussion with gray areas.

Both parts of this statement seem to be yet another thing you've made up - which I think makes four things in this thread this afternoon.

Spend a little less time thinking up things that people who disagree with you haven't said and a little more time on your own views and perhaps you won't end up diasgreeing with yourself and offended over things that haven't happened.

 

[PocketZeven]

Both parts of this statement seem to be yet another thing you've made up - which I think makes four things in this thread this afternoon.

Spend a little less time thinking up things that people who disagree with you haven't said and a little more time on your own views and perhaps you won't end up diasgreeing with yourself and offended over things that haven't happened.

Congratulations on being a antisocial then.

For the last time:
Cosby is a worse rolemodel then clinton
Cosby is a convicted criminal, who drugged women and raped them.
Clinton was not impeached and forgiven by his wife and was elected twice as president.

So yes it does matter how bad ones infraction is. To define ones badness is. You are essentially stating there is no such thing as "bad to worse".

If I am offended and you didnt do it intentially doesnt take away the fact I was offended. Either you apologise or recognise it was a misunderstanding and offending wasnt your intent. Dont talk over it claiming I am fabricating something.

Also dont fabricate conclusions that aren there. You (perhaps intentially) omitted the names of the people and suggested that I would encourage my son to admire a philanderer or murderer. I already stated that Clintons actions should not define him as a person. So I do not consider him a philanderer. However you made your own conlusion based on the misleading question. After I realised you were referring to Clinton, I corrected that I would not mind if my son would admire him as a person. If you conclude that I automatically would recommend to admire philandering, then that is your binary thought working.

You are acting like an authorative contributer to this thread and possibly the fact you are administrator could have something to do with that. But dont draw incorrect conslusion by quoting statements without context to establish how incredibly intelligent and correct you are. Which you definately arent. If its your opinion then I will respect that, but dont act are suggest that your basing your opinion on facts.

 

[Famine]

Congratulations on being a antisocial then.

I think you can do better than just insulting people who don't agree with you.

For the last time:
Cosby is a worse rolemodel then clinton
Cosby is aconvicted criminal
Clinton was not impeached and forgiven by his wife

So yes it does matter how bad ones infraction is.

And yet you took offence at the suggestion you would use Clinton as a role model for your son - a suggestion I didn't even make!

If I am offended and you didnt do it intentially doesnt take away the fact I was offended. Either you apologise or recognise it was a misunderstanding and offending wasnt your intent. Dont talk over it claiming I am fabricating something.

It's a misunderstanding alright - yours. You have literally invented what I said instead of actually reading what I said. I posted it a second time with the words you didn't read (or pretended away) in a much larger font so that you would read them.

Go back and read it again (I say "again"...). Read it a third time. And a fourth. For you to continually act like you've been wronged based on your invention of what I said rather than what I actually said is your problem.

And whether you're offended or not is irrelevant. You can take offence to anything for any reason at any time. That doesn't confer any responsibility to anybody else - being offended is not the same thing as someone being offensive.

Also dont fabricate conclusions that aren there. You (perhaps intentially) omitted the names of the people and suggested that I would encourage my son to admire a philanderer or murderer.

I quoted your post citing four people of varying degrees of your perception of their acts. One is a cult leader and murderer, one is a rapist and two cheated on spouses. I asked you which of those four you'd recommend to your son as a role model.

Apparently you were so busy taking offence at the question you didn't bother to read any of it!

I already stated that Clintons actions should not define him as a person. So I do not consider him a philanderer.

Whether you consider him a philanderer or not, he is a philanderer. He cheated on his wife. That's what a philanderer is.

And he did it with a person under his authority, for at least 18 months. And then he lied about it for another nine months, until physical evidence caught him out.

After I realised you were referring to Clinton, I corrected that I would not mind if my son would admire him as a person.

Quick reminder: prolonged affair, that he lied about until he got caught out with physical evidence, with a person under his authority, followed by an attempt at impeachment under perjury and obstruction of justice before a civil conviction of contempt of court for his misleading statements.

Admirable.

If you conclude that I automatically would recommend to admire philandering, then that is your binary thought working.

I didn't conclude that though...

You are acting like an authorative contributer to this thread and possibly the fact you are administrator could have something to do with that.

Ah, the old "cite the fact he's a moderator". That's the second time you've done that.

You need to spend more time getting your own thoughts straight rather than confusing yourself and then inventing things other people didn't say.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think you can do better than just insulting people who don't agree with you.

And yet you took offence at the suggestion you would use Clinton as a role model for your son - a suggestion I didn't even make!

It's a misunderstanding alright - yours. You have literally invented what I said instead of actually reading what I said. I posted it a second time with the words you didn't read (or pretended away) in a much larger font so that you would read them.

Go back and read it again (I say "again"...). Read it a third time. And a fourth. For you to continually act like you've been wronged based on your invention of what I said rather than what I actually said is your problem.

And whether you're offended or not is irrelevant. You can take offence to anything for any reason at any time. That doesn't confer any responsibility to anybody else - being offended is not the same thing as someone being offensive.

I quoted your post citing four people of varying degrees of your perception of their acts. One is a cult leader and murderer, one is a rapist and two cheated on spouses. I asked you which of those four you'd recommend to your son as a role model.

Apparently you were so busy taking offence at the question you didn't bother to read any of it!

Whether you consider him a philanderer or not, he is a philanderer. He cheated on his wife. That's what a philanderer is.

And he did it with a person under his authority, for at least 18 months. And then he lied about it for another nine months, until physical evidence caught him out.

Quick reminder: prolonged affair, that he lied about until he got caught out with physical evidence, with a person under his authority, followed by an attempt at impeachment under perjury and obstruction of justice before a civil conviction of contempt of court for his misleading statements.

Admirable.

I didn't conclude that though...

Ah, the old "cite the fact he's a moderator". That's the second time you've done that.

You need to spend more time getting your own thoughts straight rather than confusing yourself and then inventing things other people didn't say.

In a discussion between two individuals being offended or being offensive definately is relevant. If you care or not is a matter of your own opinion.You incorrectly stated that that was the reason I was offended. No I was offended by taking my comparison (which I clearly stated was an exaggeration for argument sake) and suggesting I would ever recommend my son to admire either Manson or cosby. Which I did take in offense. If you think you didnt do anything wrong that is your opinion. However you choose to accuse me of feigning or fabricating offense. Which makes me conclude you arent in touch with the consequences in how you communicate with people. What advantage would it give me to fabricate or feign offense?

There you go again cherrypicking quotes to control you narrative. At least put the quotes in perspective ad context.

I wil stop cluttering this thread with this back and forth. Your opinion is that I like to contradict myself and apparantly am like to feign being offended. And my opinion is that you are selfrighteous and lack some form of empathy and understanding other perspectives. I will just leave it at that.

 

[BobK]

Hillary was never President.

Perhaps it has escaped your notice but she recently aspired to that very position?

But I dont rate Bill Clinton as low as you perhaps do.

That's patently obvious. You actually admire a serial philanderer and probably serial rapist. Perhaps you're unaware of his past track record in that respect? Perhaps you've never heard of Gennifer Flowers? Or Kathleen Willey? Or Paula Jones? Or Juanita Broaddrick? Or....

 

[Famine]

In a discussion between two individuals being offended or being offensive definately is relevant.

No it isn't. Watch:

"I'm offended that you would suggest I would cause offence and I demand you apologise."

Now everyone's offended. See how it's total hogwash?

You incorrectly stated that that was the reason I was offended. No I was offended by taking my comparison (which I clearly stated was an exaggeration for argument sake) and suggesting I would ever recommend my son to admire either Manson or cosby. Which I did take in offense.

Which, since I didn't do that, means you're taking offence at something that never happened.

You simply didn't bother to read what I actually wrote and are still choosing not to read it.

However you choose to accuse me of feigning or fabricating offense. Which makes me conclude you arent in touch with the consequences in how you communicate with people.

Like people not reading what I type and taking offence for no reason but what they invented themselves? Yeah, I've been on this site nearly 15 years and you're far from the first person to do this to another person rather than discuss the flaws in their argument.

What advantage would it give me to fabricate or feign offense?

No idea. What advantage would it give you to direct insults at me or act like me being an Administrator has anything to do with anything?

You've done all three though. An attempt to save face from an obviously contradictory argument, by abrogating yourself of any need to examine it through misdirection maybe? Trump does that a lot...

 

[PocketZeven]

Perhaps it has escaped your notice but she recently aspired to that very position?



That's patently obvious. You actually admire a serial philanderer and probably serial rapist. Perhaps you're unaware of his past track record in that respect? Perhaps you've never heard of Gennifer Flowers? Or Kathleen Willey? Or Paula Jones? Or Juanita Broaddrick? Or....

Aspiring and being one arent the same though. And I have a different perspective on him. He was elected twice winning with a great majority (popular and electoral) and was not proven to have raped anybody. At most he cheated multiple times on Hillary.

For these flaws I still dont consider him a bad human being who's achievement shouldnt be ignored. Like Einstein, shakespeare and ben franklin dont go into history despite being serial philanderers themselves.

Have you seriously never cheated or considered cheating on any of you Girlfriend/wives ever?

 

[PocketZeven]

No it isn't. Watch:

"I'm offended that you would suggest I would cause offence and I demand you apologise."

Now everyone's offended. See how it's total hogwash?

Which, since I didn't do that, means you're taking offence at something that never happened.

You simply didn't bother to read what I actually wrote and are still choosing not to read it.

Like people not reading what I type and taking offence for no reason but what they invented themselves? Yeah, I've been on this site nearly 15 years and you're far from the first person to do this to another person rather than discuss the flaws in their argument.

No idea. What avantage would it give you to direct insults at me or act like me being an Administrator has anything to do with anything?

You've done all three though. An attempt to save face from an obviously contradictory argument, by abrogating yourself of any need to examine it through misdirection maybe? Trump does that a lot...

Now your suggesting I demanded an apology? I didnt.

Still cherrypicking quotes and being borderline delusional I see. Seeing flaws in arguments that arent there. Congratulations on being the most misleading administrator or even thread contributor I have ever met. I concede and admit I cant argue with a someone who's intellect and perspective I cant and probably wont ever understand. Either I am too dumb or you are to intelligent for your own good.

PS: note to self do not argue with people with borderline symptoms of a sociopath.

 

[Famine]

I will just leave it at that.

What a shock this didn't turn out to be true.

Still cherrypicking quotes and being borderline delusional I see.

You've spent two pages being offended at words that weren't there and you're making no effort to actually read what was there so that you can continue to be offended.

Congratulations on being the most misleading administrator or even thread contributor I have ever met. I concede and admit I cant argue with a someone who's intellect and perspective I cant and probably wont ever understand. Either I am too dumb or you are to intelligent for your own good.

PS: note to self do not argue with people with symptoms of a sociopath.

Oh look, more insults and more references to my position at the site. How wholly surprising.

 

[Johnnypenso]

PS: note to self do not argue with people with borderline symptoms of a sociopath.

Friendly advice. I can't tell you what to do but if I could my suggestion would be to step away from the keyboard for a while.

 

[PocketZeven]

Friendly advice. I can't tell you what to do but if I could my suggestion would be to step away from the keyboard for a while.

Except my job requires me to stand behind one everyday. Thanks for the advice though!

 

[McLaren]

Yes Clinton is actually someone I admire. Because I dont think it doesnt define him as a person. I admire almost every Potus.

For the last time:
Cosby is a worse rolemodel then clinton
Cosby is a convicted criminal, who drugged women and raped them.
Clinton was not impeached and forgiven by his wife and was elected twice as president.

You need to Google the following names and then come back here if your idea is that Cosby is a worse role model than Bill Clinton because Cosby was convicted of sexual assault and Bill wasn't.

Juanita Broaddrick
Kathleen Willey
Paula Jones
Leslie Milwee

Their allegations date back to 1978, roughly a decade after Cosby's accusations. And Hillary forgiving him is nothing to be proud of; she tried to shame these women when they came forth.

 

[BobK]

You need to Google the following names and then come back here if your idea is that Cosby is a worse role model than Bill Clinton because Cosby was convicted of sexual assault and Bill wasn't.

Juanita Broaddrick
Kathleen Willey
Paula Jones
Leslie Milwee

Their allegations date back to 1978, roughly a decade after Cosby's accusations. And Hillary forgiving him is nothing to be proud of; she tried to shame these women when they came forth.

It should also be pointed out that Cosby did not have several Arkansas State Troopers aiding and abetting his philandering and lying about it.

 

[PocketZeven]

You need to Google the following names and then come back here if your idea is that Cosby is a worse role model than Bill Clinton because Cosby was convicted of sexual assault and Bill wasn't.

Juanita Broaddrick
Kathleen Willey
Paula Jones
Leslie Milwee

Their allegations date back to 1978, roughly a decade after Cosby's accusations. And Hillary forgiving him is nothing to be proud of; she tried to shame these women when they came forth.

I did the research you suggested and have been thinking about the topic that has been in discussed. And while I perhaps didn’t make it clear enough I was not trying to make Clinton a saint. After reading the details of the allegation my perception has changed and that he definitely is a flawed human being. I did not do sufficient due diligence. My previous perception was that he had multiple consensual extramarital relations and I didn’t know about the rape and sexual misconduct allegations. However as president I still respect him. And that said I also think that it’s a shame that Cosby is now labeled as a serial rapists, while when I look back I did grew up with the Cosby show with good memories. It is conflicing that as a comedian he was a very important and positive influential person, but as a person in his personal life morally corrupt.

This discussion however started about Trump being a bad example in my opinion. And that opinion has not changed. In my opinion he is both as a president and a person worse then Clinton and there are no traits or achievements he displays that I would consider a role model.

I mean in trumps rhetoric suddenly the Caravan is not an invasion, because he stopped talking about it and the 10% tax cut (before November) for the middle class has disappeared? And that is only the tip of the iceberg of his lies.

 

[Danoff]

The Senate decided that this constituted perjury and tried to impeach him but failed - although he was later convicted of a civil charge of contempt of court for his "misleading testimony", resulting in his own licence to practice law being suspended.

Actually he was impeached. He just wasn't removed from office. House of Representatives impeached, Senate failed to remove him from office following said impeachment.

And that said I also think that it’s a shame that Cosby is now labeled as a serial rapists, while when I look back I did grew up with the Cosby show with good memories. It is conflicing that as a comedian he was a very important and positive influential person, but as a person in his personal life morally corrupt.

I think you should look back at what @Famine said about admiring actions rather than people. It makes it easier to appreciate what Cosby accomplished without also embracing his crimes. Cosby is a horrible human being who created wonderful art. He is not the first.