If men would think with the head they should...

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I would be able to be in a relationship with a man and not break ethical codes for him, but are men able to be in a relationship with a woman and still hold ethics above all else? I think so, but it seems that Wolfowitzis being held as a counter-example of this. They liked everything he did except how he handled a pay raise for his girlfriend in 2005. I have not yet dug up enough information to determine for myself if Wofowitz did something wrong or if other people, being too preoccupied with their own sexuality-based paranoia, did something wrong. Either way, someone was thinking of the bedroom when they should have been focusing on the boardroom.
.

[Jamesh]

I've been feeling a strong pull to become a militant, due to conspiracies of power such as displayed by the Bush and Howard administrations. If Wolfowitz had not been forced to resign, I would have come closer (its not necessary just yet).

Lower level staff did not like anything about Wolfowitz, so when this opportunity came up they pushed it. There is no doubt in my mind that the guy is either insane (in normal rather than QRS terms) or entirely corrupt, as all neo-conservatives are.

He really just is an alpha-female, as shown by the use of tactics like this. All want-ta-be dictators are alpha-female, because their immense irrational egos are reacting against being beta-males, and in the process they lose all sense of rationality.

Well ok I'm carrying on a fair bit above...but.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

This article says that President Bush picked Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, but according to Wiki, World Bank is part of the UN. It also explains that the President of the US nominates the head, but is elected by the board (not much difference since the President of the US is the only one who can nominate someone...). How is it that the US President is the one to do this? Shouldn't there be nominations from all the members of the UN?

Wiki also mentioned views on the World Bank from Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. The summary on that book is that the US does covert operations to economically enslave the rest of the world through intentionally unethical use of materialism.

I don't think he's insane in the normal use of the word, but he could well be an accurate reflection of the level of corruption in government.
.

[Jamesh]

Fascinating article

Must do more research on this issue. The first article I came across was:

http://www.sea-us.org.au/roxby/bechteltalk.html

Wiki says in the Controvesy and Criticism section about this dude:

His published works include books about South American tribal culture that deal with shamanistic techniques for creating self-empowerment, techniques to enhance health and longevity, as well as first hand accounts of metaphysical "travelling" through visions & dream wanderings

IMO, the things new agey type folks say, should for the most part be taken with a huge grain of salt, so I must have grave doubts about the accuracy of what this fellow is saying [even if intuitively it sounds probable]. On the other hand, the other critiscisms in the wiki article can be ignored - one cannot trust any vested interests, especially when their arguments are largely irrelevant.

[keenobserver]

I would be able to be in a relationship with a man and not break ethical codes for him, but are men able to be in a relationship with a woman and still hold ethics above all else? I think so, but it seems that Wolfowitzis being held as a counter-example of this. They liked everything he did except how he handled a pay raise for his girlfriend in 2005.

I havent followed this but Im getting that sick feeling again, that I get whenever some American chick has willingly benefitted with little risk to herself and through the generousity of some dude who ends up taking all the blame. Sort of like the couple with pot plants growing in the house but only the hubby gets locked up though she enjoyed many a time on the water pipe.

If the force and establishment were serious about reducing crime it would be very simple to pull it off, all they would have to do is punish men and women equally, overnight crime would drop in the USA at least 50%.
But the truth is they dont care enough about crime to make the hard decisions, they care about keeping their jobs, screewing their wives and educating their kids, always at the cost and sacrifice of those less fortunate than themselves.

Folks dislike cops and judges, the law more than ever before, and cops know it and always believe people lie to them, because the system is such that it is foolish to trust and be honest with cops and the like.

Its shameful that we've reached 2007 and the gender equality fairness responsibility etc situation is still so unbalanced and hugely favored toward females and against less fortunate men.
Though it has no effect on my life and im outside of that whole reality still it sickens me to still be here amongst it in the country I once loved and would have died for.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I absolutely agree that men and women should be punished equally for equal crimes, but in this case it was he who should take the greater blame because it was he who actually pushed the paperwork through to give her the raise that was outside of guidelines. If it can be shown that she knew she was getting something she was not supposed to get, she should be punished the same as someone receiving stolen goods where as he should be punished as someone who stole, if she didn't know that he had done anything wrong, all that should have happened to her was pay reduction to something within the established guidelines. If she prompted him into going outside the guidelines, that was his moral failing - as I said, someone thinking of the bedroom when they should have been thinking of the boardroom. Sometimes - possibly many more times than I realize - men do things for women without letting them know the extent of what they did.

The converse should be true itself. I know of a female who was put up to stealing stuff by her boyfriend, and when she got caught, she got put on house arrest. I don't know what happened to him, if anything. Just because someone else put you up to it, unless you were coerced such as "do this or I will kill your child, and I have your child right here" - you have the burden of moral responsibility. (Even under coercion, there are still limits - like if someone says (and you have good reason to believe) "you shoot this person/these people or I will kill your child, and I have your child right here" then ethically, as difficult as it would be, one should consider letting the possibility of their child dying. By possibility, I mean if you know the person you are supposed to kill is unethical and your child is good, then maybe that should be forgiven or just a slap on the wrist. For two assholes there should be some leniency, but for three assholes, it still might be the right thing to do to kill the assholes, but you should be punished because even assholes have some good in them, have a possibility of doing something good, and by the time you get to three, one must start to question how easily you classify someone as an asshole.

Yes, gender should have nothing to do with punishment for crimes. Only behaviors and significant causes are relevant, and gender is not a significant cause. Being male may give one more inclination to physical violence, but that is not enough of a cause to let men off easier for committing physical violence. Women may be more inclined to being emotionally abusive, but they should not be let off easier for significant emotional abuse (right now, I'm not so sure what the laws are on emotional abuse, even of a child - but that should be punishable just as physical violence because that can be at least and often more damaging than physical abuse).
.

[DHodges]

but are men able to be in a relationship with a woman and still hold ethics above all else?

I am not convinced that I am able of doing that, which is one reason I am not in a relationship. At this time, I feel like being in a (romantic) relationship with a woman would in itself be immoral.

[keenobserver]

I reckon a jury of 11 men and one honest woman would conclude she was indeed aware strings were pulled.

There was a time when such a working relationship was frowned upon even not permitted, precisely because we all know the partners will be tempted and if they can get away with it will do favors for each other risking their reputations and that of the company or department.

If were going to have any chance of becoming ethical workers again then the axe is going to have to fall and heads must roll to make an example. But as it is the only point that is being made is that men get off easy and women get off completely when choosing to be criminals. Consequently we have the terribly disgraceful mess that is the US government and lower institutions.

^^^^^^^^^^

I absolutely agree that men and women should be punished equally for equal crimes, but in this case it was he who should take the greater blame because it was he who actually pushed the paperwork through to give her the raise that was outside of guidelines. If it can be shown that she knew she was getting something she was not supposed to get, she should be punished the same as someone receiving stolen goods where as he should be punished as someone who stole, if she didn't know that he had done anything wrong, all that should have happened to her was pay reduction to something within the established guidelines. If she prompted him into going outside the guidelines, that was his moral failing - as I said, someone thinking of the bedroom when they should have been thinking of the boardroom. Sometimes - possibly many more times than I realize - men do things for women without letting them know the extent of what they did.

The converse should be true itself. I know of a female who was put up to stealing stuff by her boyfriend, and when she got caught, she got put on house arrest. I don't know what happened to him, if anything. Just because someone else put you up to it, unless you were coerced such as "do this or I will kill your child, and I have your child right here" - you have the burden of moral responsibility. (Even under coercion, there are still limits - like if someone says (and you have good reason to believe) "you shoot this person/these people or I will kill your child, and I have your child right here" then ethically, as difficult as it would be, one should consider letting the possibility of their child dying. By possibility, I mean if you know the person you are supposed to kill is unethical and your child is good, then maybe that should be forgiven or just a slap on the wrist. For two assholes there should be some leniency, but for three assholes, it still might be the right thing to do to kill the assholes, but you should be punished because even assholes have some good in them, have a possibility of doing something good, and by the time you get to three, one must start to question how easily you classify someone as an asshole.

Yes, gender should have nothing to do with punishment for crimes. Only behaviors and significant causes are relevant, and gender is not a significant cause. Being male may give one more inclination to physical violence, but that is not enough of a cause to let men off easier for committing physical violence. Women may be more inclined to being emotionally abusive, but they should not be let off easier for significant emotional abuse (right now, I'm not so sure what the laws are on emotional abuse, even of a child - but that should be punishable just as physical violence because that can be at least and often more damaging than physical abuse).
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If were going to have any chance of becoming ethical workers again then the axe is going to have to fall and heads must roll to make an example.

Agreed. One problem though, and it is summed up in the saying "shit rises to the top." Usually, it is the smartest, most unethical backstabber/brown-noser that makes it into positions of power and authority. Worse, they know how to get through the legal loopholes. Worse still, the same principle applies to government, so sometimes legal loopholes are protected in a CYA (cover your ass) spirit.

Got any suggestions? Legal ones only, please...
.

[Shardrol]

but are men able to be in a relationship with a woman and still hold ethics above all else?

I am not convinced that I am able of doing that, which is one reason I am not in a relationship. At this time, I feel like being in a (romantic) relationship with a woman would in itself be immoral.

For what reason?
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Shardrol,

That is self-explanatory. If one is not sure that he can do something without it causing him to behave immorally, then putting himself in a tempting situation would in itself be immoral. He is correct, and wise to recognize his limitations.
.

[Faust]

Although I advocate free markets, I hate the world bank and know it to be corrupt and useless.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Faust,

Do you know enough about the World Bank to have any practical ideas on how the corruption can be eliminated?
.

[Kelly Jones]

David Hodges wrote that being in a romantic relationship is itself immoral.

Elizabeth Isabelle implied that being in a romantic relationship is not itself immoral - for females - since females are more likely than males to be in romantic relationships and not have difficulties with moral questions.

Reminds me of Weininger's statement that women are a-moral.

-

[Faust]

Faust,

Do you know enough about the World Bank to have any practical ideas on how the corruption can be eliminated?
.

How the corruption can be eliminated? Are you kidding? yes, the corruption can be eliminated by eliminating the thing itself.

[Faust]

David Hodges wrote that being in a romantic relationship is itself immoral.

Elizabeth Isabelle implied that being in a romantic relationship is not itself immoral - for females - since females are more likely than males to be in romantic relationships and not have difficulties with moral questions.

Reminds me of Weininger's statement that women are a-moral.

-

What do you think are the moral issues with relationships Kelly? Do you think that all relationships are always dishonest? And why?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David Hodges wrote that being in a romantic relationship is itself immoral.

Elizabeth Isabelle implied that being in a romantic relationship is not itself immoral - for females - since females are more likely than males to be in romantic relationships and not have difficulties with moral questions.

Reminds me of Weininger's statement that women are a-moral.

I can see where it would remind you of such, but my statement meant that some people are capable of loving God above all else, whereas others are not. Since I am a female and I know that at this point I would be able to do that, I only know for sure of one person who can, and it would happen to be a female. My question is if a male actually could do the same thing.

I have noticed in relationships that guys get strange while they are in a relationship. There was one guy I was in an on and off relationship for 9 years. The reason it was on and off was that when we were not in a relationship, he was an excellent friend, but whenever we got in a relationship, his demeanor changed to something that didn't work out. Every time we went back to being just friends, even though absolutely nothing else changed except that we did not have sex, things would work out great again. I'll admit I was at fault for thinking that we could be just friends who had platonic sex, but although he would agree to that, as soon as we had sex he'd think we were in a relationship again and his attitude would change. This is the main thing that prompts me to wonder if guys really can be the people they can be and be in a sexual relationship at the same time.

As a correlation to another part of the animal kingdom, male dogs tend to bond with one owner, whereas female dogs, although they choose a primary person, are more able to be family dogs and interact well with everyone. There are some similarities between humans and dogs, and I wonder how much the gender differences correlate.
.

[Shardrol]

Shardrol,

That is self-explanatory. If one is not sure that he can do something without it causing him to behave immorally, then putting himself in a tempting situation would in itself be immoral. He is correct, and wise to recognize his limitations.

Oh, okay. I didn't realize that was what he meant.
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

That's okay Shardrol - I realize that the connection is loose enough that in most people, inferring a connection could be considered to be jumping to a conclusion and would definitely warrant a clarification. I believe that I understand D's mind well enough to recognize that he would not have juxtapositioned those if they were not related.
.