Philosophy Now Forum

Apparently, Toronto’s scandal-ridden mayor believes that if he just holds out long enough, even with the indefinite loss of so many of his mayoral powers, everything will somehow end up okay ... Or, perhaps he’s attempting to set an unprecedented new ethical/moral standard in his tiny corner of the political universe; one in which moderate recreational use of most illicit drugs somehow becomes acceptable—perhaps even considered to be a courageous political stand—for an elected politician.
Perhaps he’ll even succeed, judging from the rather scary ‘I-just-want-the-tax-savings-Ford-produces’ support that Ford incredibly maintains to date.

FrankGSterleJr wrote:Apparently, Toronto’s scandal-ridden mayor believes that if he just holds out long enough, everything will somehow end up okay … Either that, or he’s attempting to establish a brand new ethical/moral standard in his tiny corner of the political universe, one in which it’s actually acceptable—perhaps even courageous—for an elected politician to behave in a manner that’s, at least up till this point, 100 percent unacceptable for any elected official, etcetera.
Then again, perhaps he’ll even succeed, judging from the rather bizarre ‘I-just-want-the-tax-savings-Ford-produces’ support that’s incredibly actually there.

Scandal-schmandal, what about his job performance? Right, you don't have the slightest idea.

Canada is a liberal democracy. Everybody should be eligible to seek election and serve in office regardless of what they do in private life. As long as they perform adequately on the job..., its nobody's business.

But he's an elected official breaking the law?

Unless of course crack cocaine has become legal in Canada.

Arising_uk wrote:But he's an elected official breaking the law?

Unless of course crack cocaine has become legal in Canada.

Those are the kind of laws that represent an oppressive government, and people that break them should be given a medal.

Crack-users should get medals? Naw; it'd piss off the wounded veterans.
Not at all sure we should hand out medals for influence peddling, misallocation of funds, conflict of interest, DIY, destruction of property, falling over councillors, reporters, chairs and cameras... and being a bloody embarrassing all-around fathead.
Oh, and he's done a lot of damage to the city, as well.

bobevenson wrote:Those are the kind of laws that represent an oppressive government, and people that break them should be given a medal.

Regardless, he is an elected official and is supposed to uphold the law. If not any one can claim that they find a law morally oppressive and just break it instead of working to have it repealed by appealing to enough citizens that agree with them.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Those are the kind of laws that represent an oppressive government, and people that break them should be given a medal.

Regardless, he is an elected official and is supposed to uphold the law.

Where the fuck did you ever get that idea? Oppressive laws should be flouted by everybody, ignored and drummed out of existence.

bobevenson wrote:Where the fuck did you ever get that idea? Oppressive laws should be flouted by everybody, ignored and drummed out of existence.

The problem with this is that everyone thinks some law or other is an oppression upon their own personal whims. The point of a law is that if you don't like it then get enough people together to change it, not break it. Otherwise the point of laws is pointless.

I got the point from the fact that he is an elected official who should be upholding the law, not breaking it.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Where the fuck did you ever get that idea? Oppressive laws should be flouted by everybody, ignored and drummed out of existence.

The problem with this is that everyone thinks some law or other is an oppression upon their own personal whims. The point of a law is that if you don't like it then get enough people together to change it, not break it. Otherwise the point of laws is pointless.

I got the point from the fact that he is an elected official who should be upholding the law, not breaking it.

Laws against selling, buying or taking drugs of any kind are crimes against humanity, and it doesn't matter who is responsible for them, these are the people who should be behind bars.

bobevenson wrote:Laws against selling, buying or taking drugs of any kind are crimes against humanity, and it doesn't matter who is responsible for them, these are the people who should be behind bars.

As usual in your monomania you are missing the point. He's an elected official, if he cannot obey the law then he should't be there as he's a hypocrite and immoral. Regardless of how you wish the law to be.

Arising_uk wrote:He's an elected official, if he cannot obey the law then he should't be there as he's a hypocrite and immoral.

On whose authority do you make such a preposterous statement?

On the authority of the facts boob. He is an elected official. An elected official is expected to uphold the law. His administration incarcerates those who break the law. He's broken the law. He is a hypocrite and immoral.

Arising_uk wrote:On the authority of the facts.

That statement only compounds the ludicrousness of your earlier statement. I guess what you're saying is that you sit in judgment of everybody else like some kind of foolish demigod.

No, what I'm saying is that I sit in judgement upon him from the point of view of philosophy, specifically ethics and politics.

Your statement pretty much sums up why you should not be on philosophy forum but some loony theology or numerology site where you'd be more fitted.