The Tattoo Artist’s Revenge: Funny! But Wrong.

She wanted something like this to decorate her back, but the artist had something more appropriate in mind….

UPDATE HERE!

It is not unethical to be entertained by the revenge schemes put into action by others, as long as we understand that revenge is unethical in a civilized society. A culture that embraces revenge as a norm will be a violent and unforgiving one. Because the perfect act of vengeance is viscerally indistinguishable from justice, it has the power to make us feel vicariously satisfied, and that should be taken as a warning. Revenge feels good, which is why revenge fantasies have been a popular genre from “The Odyssey” to “Kill Bill”…and also why revenge can easily expand from a guilty pleasure to a bad habit.

This tale of revenge from a trailer park in Dayton, Ohio, for example, makes me want to chuckle and tip my metaphorical hat to the avenger.
Rossie Brovent asked her boyfriend, tattoo artist Ryan L. Fitzjerald, to ink a large and lovely panorama from “The Chronicles of Narnia” on her back. Little did she suspect that Fitzjerald’s insistence that she sign a consent form agreeing to accept his “artistic discretion” was but the first step in a diabolical plan. Rossie also didn’t realize that her boyfriend was on to her secret infidelity: he had just learned that she had been cheating on him with one of his close friends.

Thus she patiently endured the pain of a long tattoo session as her talented boyfriend used his magic needle on her back, refusing to allow her to see his work in progress by assuring her that it was going to be a masterpiece. And it was a masterpiece…of vengeance. Instead of the lion, the witch or Prince Caspian, Fitzgerald had applied his artistic skills to ink this, permanently, on his horrified ex-girlfriend’s back:


Yes, that’s what you think it is: a steaming pile of crap, complete with flies.

Intentionally disfiguring someone is never ethical, of course, and even with the consent form, the tattoo artist may end up paying serious civil penalties to his victim. Still, it is hard not to appreciate the sheer audacity of his response to his former love’s betrayal, and his deftness in executing it.  Just remember, as you smile, that vengeance isn’t good.

It just feels good.

50 thoughts on “The Tattoo Artist’s Revenge: Funny! But Wrong.

  1. Meh. She’s lucky he DIDN’T attempt the Narnia thing. He’s not that good. It looks more like a badly-pulled Dairy Queen cone than a steaming pile of crap.

    Seriously, after this guy gets done paying the restitution for the tattoo removal, the pain and suffering and the public humiliation, I’ll be delighted to buy him a beer. Because it WAS wrong. But it IS funny.

  2. Oh, that is NOT NOT NOT NOT funny!! That is on her back FOREVER, unless she finds thousands of dollars and endures hours of laser tattoo removal! On her whole back! No more bathing suits, no backless dresses (including a backless wedding dress to someone to whom she eventually promises to be faithful). This is awful, and that young man — cuckolded or not — should be punished, hard. Isn’t there some sort of tattoo artist code of conduct or something? Have to tell you: I have a tattoo. Decided to decorate the baby gut for my 30th birthday. Terrible tattoo “artist” who decided to add thorns to my daisy? He added yellow to the stem when I freaked out (because at least I could see it) and now it looks like a caterpillar is eating the daisy. This “art” has been on my belly for 15 years, as vibrant as the day it was created. Yay for me. I am a walking, talking advertisement to teenagers about to take the plunge. But at least mine was an accident! This is horrible. A tragedy for this young woman, honestly.

    • It’s kinda funny, because she’s an idiot. She signed the consent form? Didn’t that tip her off? She let a boyfriend she was cheating on have that kind of power—working on her BACK, where she couldn’t see it? Yes, it was an cruel and excessive punishment, but I’ve known women to chuckle over Lorena Bobbitt-type incidents, and those are certainly worse. If it was in a movie, we’d laugh, because we’d know it wasn’t real. The fact that this is real does take the humor out pretty completely.

    • I don’t see how she would have any trouble finding the money for the tattoo removal – that much will be the bare minimum that her ex-boyfriend will be required to pay her in compensation for this.

        • He may not be, but I suspect that a judge or jury could find that she did not consent to be mutilated, and that this was the intentional infliction of emotional distress and that recovery was not barred by the consent form. I just can’t see him getting away with this.

          • I’m sure such a suit would be met by a counter claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress for cheating on him, and a breach of contract suit.

            Even without the above, emotional distress torts are an uphill battle in general, and cheaters are not particularly sympathetic defendents.

            While I can see this going both directions, I don’t think it can be assumed.

              • Actually, there is no law in place that would prevent you from suing your lover for infidelity, all you would need is a lawyer willing to take the case, and a judge willing to hear it. Also, as an initial claim, a suite like that seems likely to be dismissed as frivolous, but as a counter claim it could gain some traction.

                • I didn’t say there was a law against it. I said there is no cause of action. You can sue, or try to, on anything. That’s not the same as having a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. Ditto broken promises to marry. What’s the theory infidelity? Not contract. She hid it, so she wasn’t trying to inflict emotional distress.

                  There’s no there there.

              • Not infidelity, per se, but intentional infliction of emotional distress. It was one of his friends, so of course it would get back to him. Do I think it would work? No, but if her claim is a claim for the jury, so would his be.

        • The consent form isn’t going to be worth much in the eyes of a judge. It’s enough for him to avoid criminal charges, and might be enough for him to avoid a civil charge of battery, but at the very least he’s liable for a breach of contract for giving her a tattoo that was clearly well outside the realm of what was contemplated by both parties to the agreement.

          There are a number of legal theories she could argue to get around the consent form he made her sign. It’s a “contract of adhesion” so from the start judges tend to read it fairly narrowly in favor of the consumer, so that any provisions in the contract which would not have been reasonably expected by a typical person in that position are typically not supported. So if the consent form says something like “the tattoo artist can tattoo anything on consumer whatsoever, including a steaming pile of feces,” the judge will not uphold it.

          The first theory she could try, which it looks like she’s going to, is incapacity. In the Weird News article on this she claims that they drank several hard drinks beforehand and that she was “passed out” for most of it. If a party to a contract is too drunk to know what they’re signing, judges don’t tend to uphold it.

          Failing that, she can still allege breach of contract on the grounds that the artist violated the implied good-faith effort provision that is read into every contract, whether it’s there or not. By tattooing a pile of feces onto her, something which does not appear in the Narnia novels, the artist was manifestly not making a good-faith effort to provide her with the sort of tattoo that they had in mind. Even if the consent form says that the ultimate design is up to the artist’s discretion, a judge is almost certain to read that as being restrained by the common sense idea that this design will be somehow related to the discussion that the two had beforehand. If he tries to say that she actually asked for a pile of feces, he’s going to have a hard time getting the judge to believe that.

          In a breach of contract, the breaching party is generally required to place the other party in the position they would be in had the contract been fulfilled. This, at the very least, is going to require him to pay for a laser removal and possibly give her the money it would take for her to get another tattoo. He may also have to pay for the pain and suffering she will undergo during the laser operation.

          There’s also the possibility of charging him with intentional infliction of emotional distress. If she wins on that, he’ll have to pay for the emotional pain and suffering she has undergone by having a pile of feces on her back.

    • { Josh’s comment is obscene, insulting bile that contributes nothing but nastiness to the discussion, and it does not deserve to be read or even edited. We don’t tolerate this here, and he is banned. He won’t be missed. Too bad, though—he needs this site desperately.}

      • You’re banned, Josh. It took just 5 comments for your true colors to show. Gratuitous insults are indicative of your basic disrespect for anyone with different perspectives from your own self-centered, narrow and facile certitude. Go hang out with the kids, son, you have some growing up to do.

    • Oh please, she got what was coming to her, he trusted her, and look what she did, with a good friend of his no less. She trusted him (without knowing that he knew what was up), and the result is awesome. I feel not an atom’s worth of pity for her, and I feel a certain sense of admiration for his daring-do. She played him for a sucker, but looks like she was the idiot. In a truly just world, she would be forced to keep it for at least a month or two before having it removed, and he would get a parade in his honor!

      • Being an idiot is not justification for physical mutilation, which is what this was. It’s several levels removed from throwing acid, but it’s in the same general category—better than cutting off her nose, worse than shaving her head. Vengeance is never ethical. Never.

        • Hmm… She wasn’t being punished for being an idiot, she was being punished for lying, deceiving, etc… and her lies and deceits were a bit more serious than “Yes hun, I PROMISE I left the toilet seat down”. I think this is really an issue of diff notions of ethics and Justice. I am a strong believer in retributive Justice, and as far as I am concerned, she got what was coming to her. the bit about cutting off the nose and throwing acid? That’s a bit dramatic, and nothing like a non-consensual tatoo. If it was on her face, I think that’d be a bit much. But it isn’t. Maybe it wouyld have been more balanced if he had the opportunity to equally humiliate her and emotionally hurt her by cheating on her w her best friend. Perhaps that opportunity didn’t present itself, and he took the opportunity that was the most convenient. Anyways, if other poster is to be believed, this whole story is bogus anyways, so maybe a better topic would be “is it ethical to create false yet interesting stories to raise google hits and Ad revenue”?

          • I’m sorry; you are just lost, ethically speaking. Believing in “retributive justice” means revenge, pure and simple, and vigilante revenge at that. It, quite simply, isn’t ethics. Escalating “retributive justice” turns into violence, blood feuds and injustice—as this did. What do you mean the. acid “is a bit much”? Once you accept revenge as ethical (it is not—human experience has shown us this again and again), there is no standard to make certain that the next betrayed boyfriend doesn’t use acid instead of a tattoo.

            Your other solution embodies the “tit for tat” unethical fallacy—you did wrong to me, so that justifies me doing wrong to you. It doesn’t. Most kids learn this by the 6th grade. Doing harm intentionally to someone for emotional, no-ethical reasons—anger, for example, can never be ethical. If you think otherwise, you literally don’t know the difference between right and wrong.

            “is it ethical to create false yet interesting stories to raise google hits and Ad revenue”? isn’t an interesting topic, because all it means is, “Is fraud ethical?” Duh. NO. But based on your other commentary, I am not surprised that this question would be challenging for you.

  3. I really would like to know what was going through this jilted boyfriend mind as he engaged in that behavior. He loses the girl and possibly a huge sum of money.

    • 1. I don’t think losing the girl was a concern of his.
      2. What? The same thing that went through the head of the Iranian man who threw acid in his girl friend’s face. It’s several notches down from that, or killing her, which might be her fate in Brazil. Hate and jealousy are not rational emotions.

      • Brazilian men are not allowed to kill their wifes. Get informed before writing stuff similar to the girl’s new tattoo.

        As for this woman, she can easily cover that with another tattoo, this is not too dark. It won’t be on her back forever.

        And yes, she was lucky the guy didn’t try the Narnia Lion, because he is not a good tattoo artist. If he can’t tattoo crap or flies realistically, he obviously can’t tattoo a lion.

      • How are they any more rational than love and infatuation? We are humans, we are not as rational as we would like to think. We are not robots. Actually, I sort of take that back. His response was rational: you hurt me, I will now hurt you and restore balance. Sounds good to me. To forgive her and let her be would not be rational. It may be more saintly/door matt-y, but it certainly wouldn’t be more rational.

          • Well, your snide take on what constitutes ethics appears to be “let rational thought rule, not emotion” :2. What? The same thing that went through the head of the Iranian man who threw acid in his girl friend’s face. It’s several notches down from that, or killing her, which might be her fate in Brazil. Hate and jealousy are not rational emotions.

            Also seems that you look to governmental law to determine what is ethical and what isn’t, except when those laws are not to your liking, such as Iran’s, because as you say they are guided by hate and jealousy. So your ethics seem to be guided by the laws of this country, accept when you disagree with them. Where’s this magical ethics text book you studying from, and why are so convinced the author is infallible?

            My ethics are great, yours are silly, unrealistic and foolish. That pretty much sums it up. Except you mistakenly seem to think yours are somehow enlightened and civilized.
            Please define for me what you consider to ethical behavior and what isn’t and your rationale for why one behavior falls into one camp, and other behavior fall into another.

            And to say mine are caveman like is lazy as hell, making you intellectually AND ethically lazy and wussy like.

            • quick edit, need some coffee and I realized that the Iranian mans reaction was in fact illegal according to Iranian law… but STILL, Iran’s response was to blind the man. In my opinion, that’s a-ok. Is that ok by you because it is tit for tat, or not ok because it involves violence, though of the sterile variety. As I’ve stated, that guy goving her the tat? A -ok, because she can have it removed. If he had cut off her arm? Not ok. You seem to believe that Ethics are completlet objective, and that you are fully aware of what is what with complete certainty. Ethics does NOT equal chemistry, where adding this chemicla and that chemical always equals a specific reaction. I think that ethics are subjective, and I like mine, recognizing that there are others who will disagree, and I will find fault with their ethics based on how far they vary from mine. You seem to believe that your ethical beliefs are sacred and fully objective, not recognizing the subjectivity of the matter.

            • 1. “Well, your snide take on what constitutes ethics appears to be “let rational thought rule, not emotion”
              Well yes, Ray, since ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with emotion. You are debating an ethicist about a topic you apparently can’t even define. Why?

              2. “Also seems that you look to governmental law to determine what is ethical and what isn’t, except when those laws are not to your liking, such as Iran’s, because as you say they are guided by hate and jealousy. So your ethics seem to be guided by the laws of this country, accept when you disagree with them. Where’s this magical ethics text book you studying from, and why are so convinced the author is infallible?
              There is nothing either in the article or on the blog that supports this interpretation. In fact, a theme here is that law and ethics are related but distinct.It’s pretty clear. I’m sorry you are having trouble understanding it, but since I don’t know why, I can’t help you.

              “My ethics are great, yours are silly, unrealistic and foolish. That pretty much sums it up. Except you mistakenly seem to think yours are somehow enlightened and civilized.Please define for me what you consider to ethical behavior and what isn’t and your rationale for why one behavior falls into one camp, and other behavior fall into another.”

              No, Ray, that is not what I think or write. You are not talking about ethics. You are talking about emotions, and vengeance. You cannot say “vengeance is my ethical system” any more than you can say “this cow is a block of wood.” If someone says the latter, they don’t know what a cow is. If someone says the former, they don’t understand what ethics is.I don’t argue that only my particular ethical analysis is valid—just that non-ethical analysis, which is what you are doing, whether you comprehend it or not, is invalid, and has nothing to do with “ethics,’ as the “non” would suggest.

              Your amazing certitude in making ethical assertions in apparent complete ignorance of ethics is, however, a great reminder of why I am in this field and why Ethics Alarms exists, and I thank you for it. Meanwhile, I’m going to have to insist that you read the primer on the most basic ethical principles—they are not “mine”—on the blog before I answer another silly comment like this.

              • Jack, I think you’re redefining “ethics” as “good ethics”.

                There are all sorts of ethical systems. “An eye for an eye” could be an ethical system. It’s a pretty atrocious one, but it’s still a self contained system. Believing that men are above women, and women must be subservient to men could be part of an ethical system.

                We say that people with the above beliefs “are deficient in ethics” or “have no ethics,” but that shorthand for saying “their ethics are not good” or “they don’t follow good ethics.”

                As it often is, the devil is the details of word definition and usage. Ray and JJ could be following ethical codes…they’re just horrible ethical codes that are, in our strong opinions, completely unethical.

                • I suppose, but really: the objective of ethics the discipline (the study of right and wrong) is to agree upon good ethics. Whenn we say something is ethical, we mean good ethics. When we say something is unethical, we mean bad ethics. When we mean it has nothing to do with ethics, we call it “non-ethical.” If we call unethical conduct ethical, then how do we discuss unethical conduct? There is no reasonable system of ethics that accepts vengeance as ethical as a general principle. That is how I can conclude that the culture of the mafia or the culture of radical Islam is unethical. I reject the proposition that anyone can define an objectively harmful system of “ethics” and fairly call it ethical. If it causes harm in the long and short term to individuals and the culture, it is bad ethics, hence unethical, hence not ethical, hence not ethics.

                  • There is no reasonable system of ethics that accepts vengeance as ethical as a general principle.

                    This is self referential. Your ethics define what is reasonable for systems of ethics.

                    I reject the proposition that anyone can define an objectively harmful system of “ethics” and fairly call it ethical. If it causes harm in the long and short term to individuals and the culture, it is bad ethics, hence unethical, hence not ethical, hence not ethics.

                    Objectively harmful? In the 1700s, the slave trade was considered a benefit for the back culture blacks. Now we know that the traders were just deluding themselves. There’s a real world example of something that was considered ethical at the time but was objectively harmful. You have said that we have to judge people in the times they lived. Was George Washington Unethical for owning slaves? Do we have to write off all untutored Christians in the middle ages as unethical?

                    Without a definitive system, we do have to talk about ethics in relative terms and with our assumptions firmly on the table. That’s one reason that people like religion: it has a supposedly absolute set of morals, instead of ethics subject to progress.

                    By nature, ethics is a messy business. It’s difficult to talk about it descriptively while still being understandable to well, anyone. I enjoy convoluted sentence structures and precise definitions, but I have difficulty following strict ethics language. The average person doesn’t have a chance. To make things reachable, we shortcut alot of language and talk in absolutes that aren’t actually there. For the most part, this works, but when we disagree, we need to step back and review the inherent assumptions we are making. For example, I strongly believe that abortion can by ethical, while you are absolutely in the other camp. I suspect that 50 or 100 years in the future, one of our sides will be the clear winner, but right now, absolutist language gets in the way of discussing the nitty gritty details.

                    All of this is a long way of saying, “you’re absolutely wrong, but you’re still right. I think the trip up is the words, not the ideas.”

  4. she got what she deserved. she’s a lying cheating whore.
    and you morons obviously are too stupid too, she can always go get it covered up with another tattoo. that idiot cheated, got caught and got pissed back on. too bad boohoo. she got what she deserved. anyone that sticks up for her, deserves the same tattoo on their forehead.

    • So the really intriguing question is: why is someone like this commenting on an ethics blog? Curiosity? Mistake? To see how the other half lives? A quest for self-improvement? On a bet? A joke?

      • ethics are individual. we all have different ethics. i believe that good and evil are a myth just like you probably think giving to charity is ethically sound even though it adds to overpopulation and lack of resources that could one day rid the world of humanity. So next time you ask anyone why someone with a different ethics than yours is commenting on an ethics blog… look up the fucking definition of the word. how old are you? im only 25 and your old ass is dumber than me. of course you will probably just comment on my language because thats what a true idiot would do. go watch fox news mr. black and white.

          • Clearly we DO all have different ethics, and its really a matter of the number of people who agree with your ethical outlook, that’s really what makes one’s ethics right or wrong. Seems to me like his response, and the fact that others agree with it or at least don’t strongly disagree with it, really offends you, and you for some reason have decided that that feeling of offense is evidence that the behavior is unethical.

  5. I see a lot of “she’s a WHORE WHORE WHORE and deserved what she got” here. But isn’t that the same “logic” the acid-throwers use? Because if you think about it, there’s no sound logic that would prescribe disfigurement as an appropriate punishment for breach of an implicit monogamy contract. Judeochristian morality, deftly tainting the judgment of everyone indoctrinated by it, paints cheating as a crime deserving of as severe a punishment as one can fathom; how does that make any rational sense? She didn’t maim him. She inflicted no debilitating injury. She simply breached trust. Disfigurement is the correct atonement for this?? Really??

    My parents had an implicit contract with me, that the things they taught me would be true and correct to the best of their knowledge, in order to improve my mind, and that I could trust them unconditionally. These are central to the concept of parenting, no? Welp. Imagine my shock when I found out they’d been filling my head with flagrant lies about Santa Claus since I was born. They breached my trust, and I was hurt, angry and disillusioned that they’d do that to me. Maybe I should have drugged them and tattooed a pile of shit on their backs too.

    You don’t see the problem here?

    • MAdam Fairy Queen,
      A lie about Santa Claus and the breach of a personal contract involving sexual and emotional fidelity, and the added offense of doing it with the one parties best friend…. these are really not at all similar. I so not suscribe to Judeo-Christian values at all. If they had agreed to an open relationship, no problem. But it seems that that is not the case.

  6. Jack, forgive me if I missed something higher up, but I don’t see anything that says that this is an ethics blog. If you are the moderator, I can understand some of your replies, but if not, you are doing nothing more than spouting your personal interpretation of every comment made on this blog. If someone wants to post their opinion on this wonderful thing called the internet, no matter whether their opinion matches yours or not, you have no more right to spew your vitriol than they do, and as you sound like an educated man, (and actually since this is the internet, you could really be a 9 year old girl and nobody would actually know) it seems to me that your lack of empathy and sophistication in your return salvos to most of the people that have posted here brands you the anti-social egotist in the group. Have a nice day!

    • You missed a word here or there, JJ. The blog is called Ethics Alarms. I explain its purpose quite specifically in several sections. You see nothing to indicate that this is an ethics blog? Interesting. Wow.

      The purpose is to engage in enlightened discussion about ethics, and I entertain criticism of all kinds, as long as it is civil. I’m not interested in uninformed opinions, ideological opinions, or opinions based on emotion or rationalization, and I conduct the discussions here accordingly. Ethics is a discipline as well as a pursuit; in my case, it is also a profession, passion and occupation. I know people are used to saying irrational or barely considered things on the web–too bad. it’s not welcome here. I know some people, like you, think any opinion, no matter how unmoored to facts or supported by objective logic and reasoning, is as valid as any other. Well, you are wrong. Somehow, a lot of very smart people of all philosophical orientations and backgrounds debate serious ethical issues here, and I generally learn something from every one of them. I hardly am critical of “most” comments; the kind I am unsympathetic to are comments like yours, which choose to attack me rather than the difficult issues here. Silliest of your contentions is that I have no right to moderate and control the tone of discourse and the caliber of commentary on my own blog. Given your choice of this post thread for your criticism, such as it is, I gather you think that I was wrong to ban a commenter with an email address called “killallpigs” whose concept of ethics was that there is no such thing, and who answered a respected commenter here with an obscene and abusive tirade. Or perhaps you found my response to “Kieren” too harsh, when he said,
      “she got what she deserved. she’s a lying cheating whore. and you morons obviously are too stupid too, she can always go get it covered up with another tattoo. that idiot cheated, got caught and got pissed back on. too bad boohoo. she got what she deserved. anyone that sticks up for her, deserves the same tattoo on their forehead.” Well, you’ve got the problem, not me, if you think a comment like that deserves respect on an ethics blog. I don’t approve of comments that call good faith commenters morons, and “she’s a lying cheating whore” has no more to do with ethics than it does with French provincial cooking.

      To sum up, 1) you couldn’t figure out that this was an ethics blog when it is well proclaimed; 2) nyou are defending the indefensible, 3) you challenge my right to do what I believe is necessary to serve the topic and readers here; 4) you would lower the discourse to the typical bile that can be found anywhere, and 4) you spend your comment criticizing me rather than examining the issue at hand.

      Then, to top it off, you close with the classic coda of cowardly hit-and-run trolls.
      Needless to say, I am neither chastened nor impressed.

    • Projection is my favorite form of irony.

      Maybe you should read the about page… or at least realize that a site called “Ethics Alarms” might be, about, well, ethics.

  7. I just read this when looking up a similar story, and have to say that for a person who claims to be as educated as you do Jack your views on ethics are:
    1) narrow-minded in-so-far that it fails to recognize that ethics are in fact subjective and not objective. Kosher Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is unethical, after all it does not conform to their standards of social behavior. Christians on the other hand believe that pork is OK and see the world differently, it doesn’t mean that one side is right and the other wrong.

    2) based solely on your opinion. You seem to have no respect for those who disagree with you, and even go so far as to censor the comments. I dare say if you were a part of the U.S. government that would be unethical too, further proving that ethics are defined by the situation and not by an individual.

    3) condescending and snide. You assumed that the reader read your blog/piece because it was about ethics, when from my own experience can say without doubt that had I seen it was a blog about how YOU define ethics I would not have actually read the article. I read the article because the the photo of the girls back was way too funny to not know the background, not because I wanted to hear that I am wrong for thinking she got exactly what she deserved.

    I see some impressive academic claims, so it truly blows my mind how you can fail to see that ethics are 100% subjective. Its like the Snowden case, some believe he is a traitor, while others (myself included), appreciate the sacrifice he has made in order to inform us that our government is spying on us. Until you realize this you will continue to be another unenlightened, well educated fool.

    • Well, Chris, loathe as I usually am to argue with someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and is insulting about it to boot, maybe you’ll learn something.

      1.Ethics is not “100% subjective,” and nobody who has a clue waht ethics is would ever say anything so silly, or argue for a standard so dangerous. Ethics is the study of right and wrong, and if ethics were 100% subjective, if we agreed that anyone could adopt any ethical beliefs and they were not subject to challenge, society would fall apart. This is because societies must have cultures, which means they must come to a consensus on how to do things, the behavior to encourage and the behavior to discourage. That process requires the application of analysis, based on ethical systems posited and given credibility over centuries.

      2.”Kosher Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is unethical.” Wrong. The believe those practices violate moral codes in their faiths, which has nothing to do with ethics. Nor are moral codes subjective—they are enforced by authority. By definition.

      3) “based solely on your opinion. You seem to have no respect for those who disagree with you, and even go so far as to censor the comments. I dare say if you were a part of the U.S. government that would be unethical too, further proving that ethics are defined by the situation and not by an individual.” Read about the blog before you make a fool of yourself–it helps. Of course the posts here are my opinion. I never have claimed otherwise. They are informed opinions based on ethical analysis, designed to prompt readers to learn how to look at issues from the point of view of ethical reasoning and systems, not be the seat of their pants, as you do.I have great respect for those who disagree with me, when they can articulate their reasons and use ethical analysis to do so. I have no respect for those who claim that ethics is 100% subjective. Nor do I censor comments. I enforce the moderation rules that any commenter can read, and should. As is my right and responsibility. As for your last sentence, I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say.

      3) condescending and snide. You assumed that the reader read your blog/piece because it was about ethics, when from my own experience can say without doubt that had I seen it was a blog about how YOU define ethics I would not have actually read the article. I read the article because the the photo of the girls back was way too funny to not know the background, not because I wanted to hear that I am wrong for thinking she got exactly what she deserved.

      I could not care less why someone without any comprehension of ethics or how to tell right from wrong would read this blog. Your opinion on the story shows that you are willfully, proudly unethical. Too bad. People like you drag down the culture and society.

  8. I need to take some kind of action because this has happened to me, although not a litterale piece of crap his artwork he chose to put on me is!! And to top it off he had the nerve to say he would pay for it to be removed or covered up!! I’m devastated and I don’t know what to do!! This also has made me even consider committing suicide because of this!! I need help please!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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