CDZ How far back?

[320 Years of History]

I don't know how old you are, but I'm close to 60. At this late middle stage in my life and looking back over the past 42 years of it, I can't think of anything I did that I'm ashamed of having done. Now did I make mistakes? Did I do things that looking back, I can say were ill advised? Did I do things that were reckless? To each of those questions, I know the answer is "yes." I'll wager that very few if any folks can honestly answer "no" to any of those or similar questions. In considering political candidates, I am sure that every one of them did the same.

In light of that, the central question in my mind is, "How far back in one's past is it reasonable to go when evaluating a candidate's positions and moral fiber?" I know for myself, I wouldn't care to be held to account for stuff I thought, said or did prior to being 30. Similarly, I'd give a "pass" to others in the same regard. In my own experience, though I was an adult at 18, I spent from 18 -29 learning how to be a mature, clear thinking, and responsible one. I think that's about how it works for most young adults whose upbringing was genteel or at least "typical" in a "Mayberry," "Partridge Family," or "Brady Bunch" sense of that word.

Accordingly, I think it's unfair, wrong, and just a plain old waste of time for candidates, PACs, "surrogates," etc. to even bother bringing up that "ancient history." I might take a slightly different stance if a candidate is 35-40 years old, but I certainly wouldn't for one who's pushing 70. To do so re: folks of that age is just absurd.

So now I ask you, "How far back in one's past is it reasonable to go when evaluating a candidate's positions and moral fiber?"

 

[Asclepias]

I would say it depends on the circumstances. if you got drunk as a teenager or smoked some weed I dont think its a big deal. If you burned the eyes out of mice as a 10 year old that would raise some red flags.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"Child is father to the man."

It all matters.

 

[320 Years of History]

If you burned the eyes out of mice as a 10 year old that would raise some red flags.

ROTFL

 

[Asclepias]

If you burned the eyes out of mice as a 10 year old that would raise some red flags.

ROTFL

Dont laugh. I was in the military with a guy that did this a lot.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If you burned the eyes out of mice as a 10 year old that would raise some red flags.

ROTFL

Dont laugh. I was in the military with a guy that did this a lot.

I bet he was the lone Democrat in your unit.

 

[Asclepias]

If you burned the eyes out of mice as a 10 year old that would raise some red flags.

ROTFL

Dont laugh. I was in the military with a guy that did this a lot.

I bet he was the lone Democrat in your unit.

I dont know what he was but most of my unit was democratic. He was a hayseed so its possible he was a conservative.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know how old you are, but I'm close to 60. At this late middle stage in my life and looking back over the past 42 years of it, I can't think of anything I did that I'm ashamed of having done. Now did I make mistakes? Did I do things that looking back, I can say were ill advised? Did I do things that were reckless? To each of those questions, I know the answer is "yes." I'll wager that very few if any folks can honestly answer "no" to any of those or similar questions. In considering political candidates, I am sure that every one of them did the same.

In light of that, the central question in my mind is, "How far back in one's past is it reasonable to go when evaluating a candidate's positions and moral fiber?" I know for myself, I wouldn't care to be held to account for stuff I thought, said or did prior to being 30. Similarly, I'd give a "pass" to others in the same regard. In my own experience, though I was an adult at 18, I spent from 18 -29 learning how to be a mature, clear thinking, and responsible one. I think that's about how it works for most young adults whose upbringing was genteel or at least "typical" in a "Mayberry," "Partridge Family," or "Brady Bunch" sense of that word.

Accordingly, I think it's unfair, wrong, and just a plain old waste of time for candidates, PACs, "surrogates," etc. to even bother bringing up that "ancient history." I might take a slightly different stance if a candidate is 35-40 years old, but I certainly wouldn't for one who's pushing 70. To do so re: folks of that age is just absurd.

So now I ask you, "How far back in one's past is it reasonable to go when evaluating a candidate's positions and moral fiber?"

This seems like an arbitrary measure. Rather than draw some temporal line of demarcation delineating "fair" or "foul", better to look big-picture at what the established patterns are. Right-brain (context) rather than left-brain (data).

 

[320 Years of History]

If you burned the eyes out of mice as a 10 year old that would raise some red flags.

ROTFL

Dont laugh. I was in the military with a guy that did this a lot.

Oh, Dear God in Heaven, have mercy on his soul.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't know how old you are, but I'm close to 60. At this late middle stage in my life and looking back over the past 42 years of it, I can't think of anything I did that I'm ashamed of having done. Now did I make mistakes? Did I do things that looking back, I can say were ill advised? Did I do things that were reckless? To each of those questions, I know the answer is "yes." I'll wager that very few if any folks can honestly answer "no" to any of those or similar questions. In considering political candidates, I am sure that every one of them did the same.

In light of that, the central question in my mind is, "How far back in one's past is it reasonable to go when evaluating a candidate's positions and moral fiber?" I know for myself, I wouldn't care to be held to account for stuff I thought, said or did prior to being 30. Similarly, I'd give a "pass" to others in the same regard. In my own experience, though I was an adult at 18, I spent from 18 -29 learning how to be a mature, clear thinking, and responsible one. I think that's about how it works for most young adults whose upbringing was genteel or at least "typical" in a "Mayberry," "Partridge Family," or "Brady Bunch" sense of that word.

Accordingly, I think it's unfair, wrong, and just a plain old waste of time for candidates, PACs, "surrogates," etc. to even bother bringing up that "ancient history." I might take a slightly different stance if a candidate is 35-40 years old, but I certainly wouldn't for one who's pushing 70. To do so re: folks of that age is just absurd.

So now I ask you, "How far back in one's past is it reasonable to go when evaluating a candidate's positions and moral fiber?"

This seems like an arbitrary measure. Rather than draw some temporal line of demarcation delineating "fair" or "foul", better to look big-picture at what the established patterns are. Right-brain (context) rather than left-brain (data).

It is an arbitrary line in the sand, so it's good it seems that way. Frankly, I agree with the approach you noted.

That said, I decided to try a different approach for this thread. I opted to keep the conversation simple at the outset. I've tried more complexly nuanced topical starting points on USMB, but what I generally get in reply is remarks similar in depth to the point of departure for this thread. So this time, I thought I'd start with the puerile and see if the discussion evolves to the sophisticated, as it were.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know how old you are, but I'm close to 60. At this late middle stage in my life and looking back over the past 42 years of it, I can't think of anything I did that I'm ashamed of having done. Now did I make mistakes? Did I do things that looking back, I can say were ill advised? Did I do things that were reckless? To each of those questions, I know the answer is "yes." I'll wager that very few if any folks can honestly answer "no" to any of those or similar questions. In considering political candidates, I am sure that every one of them did the same.

In light of that, the central question in my mind is, "How far back in one's past is it reasonable to go when evaluating a candidate's positions and moral fiber?" I know for myself, I wouldn't care to be held to account for stuff I thought, said or did prior to being 30. Similarly, I'd give a "pass" to others in the same regard. In my own experience, though I was an adult at 18, I spent from 18 -29 learning how to be a mature, clear thinking, and responsible one. I think that's about how it works for most young adults whose upbringing was genteel or at least "typical" in a "Mayberry," "Partridge Family," or "Brady Bunch" sense of that word.

Accordingly, I think it's unfair, wrong, and just a plain old waste of time for candidates, PACs, "surrogates," etc. to even bother bringing up that "ancient history." I might take a slightly different stance if a candidate is 35-40 years old, but I certainly wouldn't for one who's pushing 70. To do so re: folks of that age is just absurd.

So now I ask you, "How far back in one's past is it reasonable to go when evaluating a candidate's positions and moral fiber?"

This seems like an arbitrary measure. Rather than draw some temporal line of demarcation delineating "fair" or "foul", better to look big-picture at what the established patterns are. Right-brain (context) rather than left-brain (data).

It is an arbitrary line in the sand, so it's good it seems that way. Frankly, I agree with the approach you noted.

That said, I decided to try a different approach for this thread. I opted to keep the conversation simple at the outset. I've tried more complexly nuanced topical starting points on USMB, but what I generally get in reply is remarks similar in depth to the point of departure for this thread. So this time, I thought I'd start with the puerile and see if the discussion evolves to the sophisticated, as it were.

With all due respect that's analagous to starting a fight and hoping it evolves into a hockey game

 

[Picaro]

You can get away with stupid crap until around 25 or so; I think the cerebral cortex thing isn't fully developed until around that age. If you're still doing really stupid crap after 30, you get to own it.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't know how old you are, but I'm close to 60. At this late middle stage in my life and looking back over the past 42 years of it, I can't think of anything I did that I'm ashamed of having done. Now did I make mistakes? Did I do things that looking back, I can say were ill advised? Did I do things that were reckless? To each of those questions, I know the answer is "yes." I'll wager that very few if any folks can honestly answer "no" to any of those or similar questions. In considering political candidates, I am sure that every one of them did the same.

In light of that, the central question in my mind is, "How far back in one's past is it reasonable to go when evaluating a candidate's positions and moral fiber?" I know for myself, I wouldn't care to be held to account for stuff I thought, said or did prior to being 30. Similarly, I'd give a "pass" to others in the same regard. In my own experience, though I was an adult at 18, I spent from 18 -29 learning how to be a mature, clear thinking, and responsible one. I think that's about how it works for most young adults whose upbringing was genteel or at least "typical" in a "Mayberry," "Partridge Family," or "Brady Bunch" sense of that word.

Accordingly, I think it's unfair, wrong, and just a plain old waste of time for candidates, PACs, "surrogates," etc. to even bother bringing up that "ancient history." I might take a slightly different stance if a candidate is 35-40 years old, but I certainly wouldn't for one who's pushing 70. To do so re: folks of that age is just absurd.

So now I ask you, "How far back in one's past is it reasonable to go when evaluating a candidate's positions and moral fiber?"

This seems like an arbitrary measure. Rather than draw some temporal line of demarcation delineating "fair" or "foul", better to look big-picture at what the established patterns are. Right-brain (context) rather than left-brain (data).

It is an arbitrary line in the sand, so it's good it seems that way. Frankly, I agree with the approach you noted.

That said, I decided to try a different approach for this thread. I opted to keep the conversation simple at the outset. I've tried more complexly nuanced topical starting points on USMB, but what I generally get in reply is remarks similar in depth to the point of departure for this thread. So this time, I thought I'd start with the puerile and see if the discussion evolves to the sophisticated, as it were.

With all due respect that's analagous to starting a fight and hoping it evolves into a hockey game

Well, I've tried approaching topics from rational and cognitively rigorous approach of presenting a thesis, defending it, and driving to a conclusion. That doesn't work either. So, heck, I went with what I call the "mud on the wall" approach this time.

 

[JoeMoma]

I wrote and defended a thesis in grad school. On a message board a thesis is a bit much. There is value in being pithy.

 

[320 Years of History]

I wrote and defended a thesis in grad school. On a message board a thesis is a bit much. There is value in being pithy.

What I most often see here on USMB consists mainly of laconically inane platitudes rather than compendiously profound pearls of wisdom. Brief banality is an inapt alternative for trite tediousness. When I write expostulatively, it's because I haven't had time to write something shorter.

 

[320 Years of History]

I wrote and defended a thesis in grad school. On a message board a thesis is a bit much. There is value in being pithy.

Here ya go...this is the best I can muster for pithy today. Perhaps tomorrow amidst post bacchanal blues I can do better. <winks>