Sam Adams

I’ve heard a lot of this the past day or so about Sam Adams – “It’s not the sex that bothers me, it’s that he lied”.

To this I say – You are either incredibly naive, or you are lying to yourself.

@ZippityD put it this way – “if adams was a vegetarian, but said he was an omnivore when asked, then was found out, what would the fallout be? just curious”

This was derided as a poor example, because, of course, the real problem was that he coached a kid to lie, so we have moved the goalposts a little, but let’s apply the exact same example.

If Sam Adams were a vegetarian, and his intern were also a vegetarian. And the two of them ate vegetarian meals together, in secret. And then Sam Adams lied and said he ate meat, and told Beau or whatever the guys name was to also lie… would people be asking him to step down? Would they be calling him out at press conferences? Would there be a recall campaign?

I don’t think so. So, the fact that this is sex related obviously plays a part. If it were about his eating habits, it’d be a little white lie. But since it is related to whose junk touched what, it’s a big deal, right? So it’s not the lying that bothers you. It’s the fucking. It’s called math. We delete the common terms from both sides.

I wonder what would happen if Sam Adams secretly had MS, and called a press conference to talk about it. We’d probably have an article in the paper about how sad it was that he was dealing with this painful disease. If he secretly had AIDS though? I suspect everyone would be all freaked out, and you’d likely see somebody asking him to step down so a healthy person could take office. And they’d say that it wasn’t the AIDS that bothered them, it was the lying about having it. They’re both degenerative afflictions. But one is related to fucking, and the other isn’t.

3 thoughts on “Sam Adams

  1. Hey there, Aaron. I’m enjoying your Tweets on Twitter. Just check out your page here. I like that your giving this stuff good critical thinking.

    I think the problem with the equation you’re proposing here, at least the problem that many would see, is that in vegetarianism, people’s lives are not at stake. (As far as I know, I could be wrong there.) With Sam Adams lying about being a vegetarian, nothing of consequence to people’s lives would be involved, unless of course he had huge sponorship from Vegetarian groups.

    With the sex part, think of it this way. If Bill Clinton was not married and when he was president he had sex with a woman of similar age and then he lied about it, would people have a problem with his lie? Probably, but it wouldn’t be as big of a deal. Do you think people (the general public) would be upset because they’re uncomfortable with his heterosexuality? Using your reasoning here, that it’s about the sexual preferences of a man in office, one could infer that people would prefer Bill be gay.

    Your reasoning thus doesn’t really cover the range of issues here.

    Also, think of it this way. If Sam were not mayor, but an insurance salesman, and he lied about having sex as he did, would the general public call for him to resign? Why or why not? Could the public’s impression of Sam’s activities be affected by the idea that he’s representing them? OK, so why was such a fuss made of Bill Clinton? He lied under oath, right? Is that really so much worse than not lying under oath? Again, it points to other factors being involved. I would say it’s pretty unfortunate to judge the public’s reaction based on an elected official’s sexuality. Whether homophobic or (in our case) not, that’s where your reasoning is going. I hope we can get beyond all that.

    Cheers,
    Daniel

  2. Interestingly enough, if you go back over my comments here, and my second blog post, and, in fact, every tweet. I have been careful and intentional about not mentioning homosexuality. If Sam Adams were straight and boinked an 18 year old girl, it would be just as big of a deal.

    You’re also implying that peoples lives are at stake when men have sex with each other? I’m trying to figure out the context on that remark. Am I genuinely at risk when Sam Adams fucks people? Who else is at risk? What are the criteria for being at risk here?

    And, if Sam were an insurance salesman, it would be “insane” for the general public to ask him to resign. And… if not lying under oath is a “zero” on the scale of wrongness… then yes, lying under oath is worse. It’s like saying “which is more wrong, killing a baby, or not killing a baby”. I’m gonna go with ten out of ten folks saying that it’s “more wrong” to kill a baby.

    My point in all of this is that we can’t break the argument down into little black and white flecks like a bunch of third graders. There is nuance and huge shades of grey here. My reasoning says “don’t discard portions of the problem just so you can feign some kind of moral authority”.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.