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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: j g cordes who wrote (29609)	1/25/1999 12:14:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>Marital trust may be "weakened" or strengthened by infidelity, or it may serve no purpose at all.< My friend, you really must think in essentials. What you have claimed here is something like claiming a man may possibly avoid getting a hole in his skull by putting a gun to his head and blowing out his brains. For any reasonable human it is impossible for trust to be strengthened by infidelity. The unilateral breaking of a contract brings with it, by default, an abuse or violation of trust. >Conditions within a marriage change and the real "abuse" may be the forced but synthetic and tragic fidelity of a kept wife or husband.< You quite miss the mark and yet support my point. If the marriage contract calls for both parties to be “faithful” (and if by the term “faithfulness” we simply proscribe adultery), and if both parties uphold this aspect of the contract (even synthetically), then no abuse or violation has occurred, and neither party can use this as a basis for claiming a violation of trust. Now if the contract had built into it a requirement for organic faithfulness (that is faithfulness that includes the heart, mind and soul and body of each spouse), and if in the course of a marriage a party should withhold one of the components of this faithfulness, then a breach of the contract has indeed occurred, and with it a violation of trust. As you say, this is the real “abuse”. In this latter case trust was “weakened” in that a contract based upon organic faithfulness was established by two parties and then broken by one of them. The party who withheld a component of faithfulness “abused” the trust of the party who maintained his/her obligations under the contract. Again, a breaking of a contract, particularly in the flagrant and repeated manner of Bill Clinton, amounts to an abuse of trust, and since where presidents are concerned such abuses fall under the jurisdiction of a court of impeachment, Clinton's impeachment was justified. >You may have some personal knowledge in that area.< Indeed I do, though I have no personal experience here.