Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (138114)	7/12/2001 6:19:23 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1588047

What if Clinton as president or Gary Condit hooked up with a relatively powerless 30 year old? Somewhere, between 18 and 30, you do draw a line based on age, I'd think. At some point, a person becomes self-responsible whether or not they are mature. I think that if Monica, at 21, engaged in a relationship with a 50 year old man, that's fine if it her choice to do so. But when that man is the most powerful man in the free world, you cannot make the case that power wasn't involved. While it may not have been, the appearance of impropriety is sufficient to make the relationship inappropriate. Had Monica been 30, I would not be complaining. In Condit's case, the power differential should be less of an issue -- Levy is a little older, undoubtedly more mature (at 24), and Condit is a little less powerful. However, when you throw the 18-year old into the mix, it again becomes an issue. I recognize the subtle nature of all this; however, any reasonable ethical standard will require that actions be conducted at a level ABOVE any appearance of impropriety. So, if the appearance is such that there might be a question, the behavior should be avoided. One point on ethics in general. The reason for the general ethical requirement that behaviors be above any appearance of impropriety is to create a gulf between right and wrong, so there can be no confusion between the two. When you don't have such a gulf, you end up with a lot of "gray" situations where the behavior can be proclaimed "ethical" and no person is in an absolute position to contradict it. This is what Clinton and other liberals have done repeatedly. While some Republicans no doubt have done so as well, it is with much less frequency. My intent is not be an ultra conservative; rather, it is to promote the notion that we need a DMZ between good behavior and bad so there is no question as to what IS good and what IS bad. There is no room for interpretation when moral issues are at stake. If there IS interpretation, you will have a persistent liberal bias that, over time, will always become the next standard for behavior.