IceCreamMan wrote
X-rated Bob wrote
Just because you can't put a number to something doesn't mean it has no value.
Bono was involved in an initiative that resulted in 5 billion USD of aid to the poorest countries in Africa. Does that help?
i did not know he was a womaniser .... and all the the porgrams i have seen on tv do not allude to it ..and yes he has dropped in my esteem because of it ......... you cant point fingers at swaaggart,bakker et al an then not at king ....
Look... everybody has skeletons in the closet, things that make you go hmmmmmm. The thing, it seems to me, is to weigh things up. King was a catalyst for major social reform. OK... so he was a womaniser too. Does that put him in the same league as Silvio Berlusconi who is a womaniser and not much else?
how much was bono's personal contribution?
No idea. But then I'm not insisting on numbers, numbers, numbers....
One thing having skeletons ,its a completely different thing not stopping an continueing with it .... the term womaniser denotes ongoing as in serial as in he did not stop..subtle difference on that we can both agree ..yes?
I'd agree with your definition. The whole thing with King was quite cloudy, and it's clear that the FBI were running a smear campaign as well. That doesn't mean that he was innocent of course and it's clear that he kept the company of women other than his wife, but the FBI were certainly out to make mountains out of molehills. Interestingly when they threatened to black mail him he did not fold - so maybe his conscience was clear.
But I digress...
How does comparing him to Silvio actaully make king a better person? i am struggling to understand the connection?
Berlusconi is clearly an adulterer of note. What I'm saying is that there's not as much in the credit column for him as there was for King. Write "womaniser" down on the debit side for both men. Now with King we can note on the other side his campaigning to highlight injustices in his own country, and various things that we can't put a dollars and cents value to but that are clearly not trivial. Now for Berlusconi we write down.... what exactly?
See the point now? See how the books balance differently in the two cases?
You can judge people by their transgressions only - in which case King and Berlusconi come out about the same (though I don't see paedophilia on King's rap sheet). But if you try to judge them
in the round then they are men of very different calibre.
