George, the 2-cent version followed by the all-you-can-eat:
Had you replaced <sexual proclivities> with 'immoral behaviors', you would have more likely had my post. You should then not have fallen into your sex rap, and so paid more attention to your own conclusion. -end-2-cent.
The minor inaccuracies in your summation do not suggest you miss my post's point, nor is it your disagreement about the factual interpretation in the post. You show you miss my point in correcting my conclusion and the alternate conclusion you offer.
My post was first about a pattern of behavior. The attributes I ascribe of interest in that behavior is not sex, but difficulty to change, an impediment to the efforts of character. The behavior of sex was chosen because it is such a large part of his personality, not for some dodge. The behavior of sex was chosen since the media coverage was extensive, and more knowledge likely exists in the public. Sexual behavior was chosen because Darrell had posted a nice worst case summary [He has since reposted it in the last day or three under the title, Hey Ignorant.]. So I did not need to defend choosing my evidence - not because I think the source very reliable. So, though neither Clinton overall nor his entire character, is certainly not about sex, this analysis is completely about the conclusions to be drawn from sexual behaviors. My conclusion is about character; you have brought sex from lowly examples to a prominent place. Therefore, I consider you to have missed my post's point.
Second, the pattern is claimed to demonstrate, to evidence something non-behavioral, something intangible, hidden and personal. In a word, character. Character has a number of components, and integrity has some shades of meaning as well. Where they overlap is consistent with my conclusion. There are meanings to integrity that are not consistently a part of character. Specifically, integrity and character have a "code of ethics" aspect. The code I point to here is Clinton's code to overcome his pathological urges. Integrity also has meaning as open, honest, straightforward. Complete honesty is not what we want in our supreme commander. But honesty to himself, comparing his behavior to his code, is evidenced in his changing behavior, reflecting force of character. I don't see integrity as better describing the goal than character.
Your own conclusions are not based on my post, but I will indulge a reply.:
You consider him to evidence a chasm regarding women, private and public.
You note his tendency to sell out anything or one for self-preservation.
These two statements, and more implied, draw your conclusion that he has no character.
First, your two statements are not behaviors, they are conclusions. No one can argue logically with your conclusions because there is no premise. No one can present a contradictory example, because the examples you use are conclusions. A counterexample as an arguement is worthless.
The idea that anyone has no character is as meaningful to my mind as saying someone has no personality. Only a brain-dead person could qualify. Living itself is a core ethic and moral principle. Absolute statements like your conclusion are more properly taunts than discussion.
An explanation of the misuse of integrity is in the aspect of consistency. Integrity is unwanted when one persona is still pathological. The parallel to bad behavior and good morality should be obvious. As character approaches the goal of driving out bad behavior, he will be left sexually moral and with public and private integrity toward women. A clear counter-example to your self-preservation accusation comes in Clinton's behavior as early as when he was 14. His alcoholic step-father routinely physically abused his wife and son. As a bare teen, with no alternative homes, Bill confronted his step-father and stopped the abuse of his family. Long ago... blah, blah, blah. Some would have us believe character is a static characteristic, in a person or not. I believe judging another's character is more erroneous than accurate, and futile at best. Rather - judge our own actions and code.
You know, George, I'm not saying the Oval Office is the place for severe rehab. But since we all are undergoing slight rehab every moment, there is no reason not to accomodate the personal problem of the man with the responsibility. These problems needn't hardly impact his responsibilities. Better facts, earlier known, is advisable for the future. |
