It seems that I simply have a different expectation of someone I vote for.

Being a crook or not is not linked to private life. I hadn't really thought about the angle of corruption, criminals should be kicked out, tried and sent to prison. I just don't see how that is linked to wether someone is faithful or not.Someone cheating on his wife is not automatically corrupt and someone not cheating on his wife is not automatically a saint. I concede to your point but my leniency was more towards private issues.

*grin*@optimistic .. I always thought that was amongst THE most american characteristics.

double post

Seems it use to be

A married man screwing a woman who isn't his wife loses his house, his kids, half his money, and half his future income in the divorce. Which is why he probably won't. Oh wait, he did!

Agreed.

Considering we elected a first term senator for president on a platform pure "hope and change" it seems like it is a very "american" trait, unfortunately, look where it got us? (me, I could tell it was coming a mile away, but I am not naive)

Oxford says optimist is: noun 1 hopefulness and confidence about the future or success of something. 2 Philosophy the doctrine that this world is the best of all possible worlds.

Webster says optimist is: 1 : a doctrine that this world is the best possible world2 : an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome

oxford says naive is: adjective 1 lacking experience, wisdom, or judgement. 2 (of art or an artist) produced in or adopting a simple, childlike style which deliberately rejects sophisticated techniques.

Webster says naive is (only relevant definition shown): deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment

There is a huge difference between being an optimist and being naive. An optimist thinks the most favorable outcome will occur / or beleives that the world is overall good and happy

A naive person thinks an impossible (and very good) outcome will occur despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For example, thinking that communism would work was optimistic on karl marx's behalf, it has never been tried before.

Thinking communism will work THIS TIME is naive on the american peoples part, because it has always failed every time it was implemented, and the reasons and methology for its failure are well documented and understood. and it was clear that this is what this administration is pushing.

oh oops, wrong subject... err...

Right... thinking that your significant other / congressman would not cheat on you is optimistic, this is what I personally think. (I give benefit of doubt)

Thinking that your significant other / congressman will not cheat on you THIS TIME after you caught them doing it in the past (and they were CAUGHT, not came clean on their OWN accord because they felt terrible crushing guilt!) is extremely naive.

If there was no catching involved and the person came on their own and admitted wrong doing, then it would be optimistic to trust them again, maybe OVERLY optimistic... more optimism than I would allow. But being caught red handed? the only thing a person caught red handed regrets is getting caught.

Examples: You are a boss... you hire an employee, you do not put a hidden camera because you trust they will not steal from you - mildly optimistic.

Your employee comes forth and gives you a wad of bills, they admit they have stolen money in the past, say they are returning it all now, they feel terrible guilt about it, and quit the drug / alcohol / whatever that drove them to it. If you trust them again and still not install a hidden camera you are - moderately optimist

Same employee does it AGAIN... - extremely optimistic, a little naive, to beleive this is really the last time...

You catch an employee stealing red handed, he says it was the first time, promises to change, says it is all due to addiction problems, and swears up and down that he will never do it again. Trusting them at that point will be purely NAIVE; optimism is no longer a part of the equasion here.

Note that this case, it is a much more minor offense than cheating on your wife, or betraying the public. So the threshold for a person to skim a few bucks from the register is much lower than that for betraying a spouse or skimming millions when they are already rich and powerful. and as such reflects more severely on their morals. If a politician comes clean on their own, it is still somewhat naive to think they don't have ulterious reasons (Such as, being practically caught and hoping to lessen the remifications)

You mix two things together that aren't the same. Cheating as being unfaithful in marriage and cheating as being corrupt. Those two things are not the same, and one doesn't determine the other. Because you cannot expand your theory to prove that they are dependant on each other - which would have to be the case for this to be an universal theory - combining those two is not only not valid but also dangerously prejudicial. But hey, what has logic got over percieved moral righteousness?

you can say that it is DANGEROUSLY PREJUDICIAL to assume that a person who cheats on his wife will backstab you in other areas. I will go ahead and do it anyways because I don't enjoy being fucked over. Enjoy the fruits of your naivete.

Just remember, you brought this on yourself.

No call for profanity, really. Gutterlanguage is unbecoming in civilized communication and usually the last resort of those who don't have a better argument in a debate. Let's just hope that you will never cheat on whomever you meet or marry or you'll end up a corrupt backstabbing goodfornothing criminal like *that*, or that your partner will never cheat on you because that would make you a really poor judge of character. I wish you alot of success with your black and white worldview.

I think you'll come to realize sooner or later that some things aren't cut as nice and neat as you'd prefer, and that marriages are never something that can be truly understood by those on the outside. You never know what a marriage was like on the inside, and judging it by using infidelity alone is not insightful. I know marriages that have become just a pretense to the outside world to keep appearances, but where it would be no problem at all if someone found an affair or actually does have an affair because the  marriage is over emotionally, just not on paper. There are some backstabbing bastards among those I know - but that is the exception, by far not all of them.

There are many different fascettes in life, not just that ones you like best.

there is no such thing as gutter language. The term shit was actually invented to be a "non offensive" term for feces. Then it became offensive so crap was invented to be a non offensive term for feces. Then it became offensive so crud became a non offensive term for it. Now people are saying that crud is offensive and are making up new terms. The whole thing is just plain stupid.

No, thats NAME CALLING... If I called you a "F----- Piece of F---- -----" I would be name calling and proof of having no argument. If I use fucked over instead of screwed or fudged over or fuffed over or whatever is currently "not offensive" to the idiots who focus on the ancilary issues, then all is fine.

If I decide to enter a child raising relationship via a monogamous perversion of a previously religious contract (aka, US style "marriage"); then yes I would never cheat, because it is a major betrayel of trust of a person that should be significant to you. However I am highely unlikely to enter such a relationship.

The opposite has been the case. As I matured and learned, I came to the conclusions that the notions of "everything is always shades of gray" that has been hammered in via liberal indoctranation facilities (school) is bullshit, and that in reality SOME things ARE black and white. While many things ARE shades of gray as I have been taught, not ALL things are.

From your profile I see you are 31, while at 25 I am younger than you, it is not enough to make a difference. Age is not the reason for our disagreement at this point.

Everybody that marries vows's it will be forever and probably thinks they will never cheat. But life changes, and so do people. Sound's like a lifetime type of slogan lol but I am not actually referring to melodramatic unhappy marriages here or love triangles etc. It's a fact. Did you know that statistically 10% of the children hadn't been fathered by the husbands/partner? That number is a rule of thumb for Germany, but I am sure its probably roughly similiar in the US.

Liberal indoctrination facilities - cute - I have to remember that. Id'd disagree with you, conflicts of interest are mostly shades of grey. That's why they are conflicts. I didn't say that everything was either, just that not everything is black and white. It all depends on what you have determined to be your version of "black". I can give you an example that had people debating hotly in Germany a few years ago about what the police was and wasn't allowed to do. This guy, Magnus Gäfgen, had abducted a little boy and demanded a ransom. They found him but not the little boy, and chief of police in Frankfurt was in a bind to find the boy as fast as possible. The cops in Germany have very strict rules, and threatening or torturing suspects is not allowed because it violates human rights and human dignity, and that is one of the most important principles in our constitution. Well, the chief of police did it anyway because he wanted to find that little boy. I think he threatened Gefken with unimaginable pain if he didn't tell them.. and he cracked. Unfortunately, the kid was already dead. Now, is it allowed to break away from fundamental and incontrovertible principles in order to save a life? Oppinions were split - but the chief of police had to take his hat and was even sent to prison for a short while. Here the courts argued that those principles are what make our society civilized and they cannot be bent because if you bend them once, you'll end up on a slippery slope quickly.

In the US,, i don't know what the police is allowed to or isn't allowed to do - if you believe in Jack Bauers appraoch (also hotly debated due to its interpretation of said principles) then yes, it should be. But what is then the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy in the sense of legitimation of actions?

Anyway - that is a prominent example, there are more than one answers, and it is definitly not a black and white issue. Quite current debate in the US, actually, if Im not mistaken. Arguing against torture does not mean you really want to protect the terrorist's human dignity and rights in my example, but what "selective" torture would mean for the principles and legitimation of government. It seems to be a perverse seperation of reality from theory, but it isn't.

That was slightly off topic, sorry, but maybe interesting nontheless