To: Lino... who wrote (2742 ) 10/17/2000 12:45:23 AM From: cosmicforce Read Replies (1) | Respond to I agree that it will be an issue, but disagree that it can provide any truthful insight. Further, I need a more concrete definition of "morals" and an unbiased metric for assessing these. Philosophers have been wrestling with this for millennia. It is not likely to produce a compelling answer in politics.their agenda. If a tobacco company comes out and starts suggesting that people are taking the rights of smokers, should we accept this characterization as unbiased? If an individual says he won't take tobacco money, but the large organization he heads takes it, possibly without his knowledge, does that nullify his credibility, or can it be attributed to incompetence of the staff. Ever hear of "plausible deniability?" Both are plausible and therefore a definitive case for moral failure is not supported. It is pretty hard to make sweeping statements about one candidate's morals without asking similar questions about the other. Even handed analysis shows that both parties are far from clean. It's probably safer to stay on issues.
