LogFAQs > #938572113

Smarkil posted...

I'm sorry, am I misunderstanding this? Are you saying a rapist could/should be a politician?

Does that extend to all crimes or is it just rape? Like, if the dude was a drug trafficking kingpin, would he also be fine being a politician?

Technically speaking, there's a semantic difference there. A drug kingpin is only a drug kingpin so long as he controls a drug empire. When somebody isn't a drug kingpin, they're referred to as a former drug kingpin. However, there's no such thing as a former rapist. A rapist isn't called a rapist just in the act of rape, they're always considered a rapist even if their crime was 20 or 30 years ago. And, not for nothing, but there are politicians who go to jail on corruption charges who get re-elected for office so singling out other groups of ex-cons as being unsuitable for office seems silly by comparison.

And pragmatically speaking, a lot of politicians *have* been rapists. Not just in the past sense, but they did it while in office. So the "could" question kinda goes out the window, just leaving the "should" question and the vast majority of politicians shouldn't be politicians regardless.

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.