Saturday Night Ethics Fever, 9/21/2019: Crazy Stuff

1. A simple, factual, ethical rebuttal to Beto O’Rourke, who panders to the anti-gun Democratic base by saying that he’ll confiscate the weapons he thinks we don’t “need.” Lauren Boebert, who with her husband owns local restaurant Shooters Grill, where she and a lot of the staff  open carry a loaded firearm,  confronted  O’Rourke at a town hall in Aurora Colorado. “I was one of the gun-owning Americans who heard you speak regarding your ‘Hell yes, I’m going to take your AR-15s and AK-47s.’ Well, I’m here to say, ‘Hell no, you’re not!”

She was, of course, correct, just as Beto was grandstanding to the ignorant and fearful, in deliberate defiance of the Constitution.

To his credit, Beto tried to control the rabid anti-Second Amendment fanatics in his crowd  who tried to shout Boebert down, as she continued,  “We all have these stories. We all have the experiences. I was living in Aurora during Columbine. I had just recently moved when the Aurora shootings happened. Yet I have very close ties here. Yet all of those people were there defenseless.”

“They had no way to defend themselves against a crazed shooter, so I want to know how you intend to legislate the hearts of men and leave American citizens like myself, American mothers,” Boebert said. above the  abuse from the crowd. “I have four children. I’m 5 foot zero, one hundred pounds, and cannot really defend myself with a fist.”

Then she told a heckler near her that  she didn’t have her AR-15 with her, but  was carrying her Glock. “Well, you shouldn’t have that,” the man said.

Wrong again. It’s not his call, nor his business, whether she has a pistol or not.

2. From the wasteful and pointless protests files: “Hundreds of thousands” of 20-somethings and kids took part in a global protest against “inaction on climate change.” What do they know about climate change? Only what they have been told by agenda- driven activists, teachers and politicians, almost all of them without genuine scientific comprehension of the complexities, vagaries and uncertainty of the topic themselves. Are hundreds of thousands of people who don’t really know what they are talking about more persuasive than, say, one? Should they be?

No. Leading these innocents to believe otherwise is a cruel joke. Margot Guillen of Harvest Collegiate High School, told Yahoo News she was there to send a message, saying, “By protesting peacefully, it shows how committed our generation is to making a change and showing that we know what’s happening and we need to stop it.” They don’t know what’s happening, though, and they don’t know how to stop “it,” in part because they don’t know what “it” is, when “it” will occur, what the extent of “it” will be, and even whether “it,” whatever “it” is, will occur at all.

Good protest.

Typical.

3. Question: Will feminists have the integrity and courage to stand up against LGBT bullying and demand that only biological women who have not undergone testosterone treatment be permitted to compete in women’s sports? Or will they permit women’s sports to be destroyed in the service of a tiny minority?

Former Olympic skiier Rebecca Dussault said in an interview  that forcing female athletes to compete against biological males will have a devastating effect on girls’ and women’s sports,and, in turn, a devastating effect on girls and women. Biologically male athletes competing  as transgendered competitors  have been slaughtering females when allowed to enter female athletic events. Now Democrats in Congress are pushing the Equality Act, which, among its other provisions, would require schools to allow transgender athletes to participate in girls’ sports.

“We invest so much money into keeping sports fair, and this blows the cap off of it. Every woman’s record in sports will fall,” said Dussault. “I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt there are 1,500 men who on their bad day can beat Serena Williams in tennis. There are 2,000 men who could outrun the fastest female sprinters of all time. So if one of them decides to compete as a trans woman, there you go.”

I assume Dussault will now be attacked as an anti-trans bigot for speaking the truth.  This is one of those areas where reality and common sense is in direct opposition to the way progressives fervently wish the world could be. The only way to prop up the myth is to destroy the heretics.

4. Hotel screw-up ethics. I arrived at the Fair Oaks Mall (in Fairfax, Va.) Marriott with my traveling companion at close to 10 PM. We had a repeat of the seminar we had just presented in Richmond that morning at 9 am the next day, and we were both exhausted.  I was paying for the incidentals for both of us, while the reservations and the bills were handled by our sponsor, my client.

My companion was quickly checked-in with my credit card, but I was told that there was no room reserved in my name (despite my presentation of a confirmation number) and that the hotel was full. “Sorry!”

I decided to be nice and calm. The two room reservations had been made weeks ago, and both at the same time, I pointed out. I wouldn’t have driven out to the hotel from Alexandria if I didn’t know I had a room waiting, and my client, who was charging a pretty penny to the attendees of my seminar, certainly weren’t going to expect me to stand and deliver without a place to sleep the night before. In short, if there was a mistake, it was the Marriott staff that made it, not anyone else’s.

The two staff members on duty, a pleasant young woman in a head scarf and a pompous 30-something guy with a mustache, bustled around and whispered without telling me anything or solving the problem. I had been standing and waiting quietly there for about 20 minutes when an airline crew arrived. Both of the clerks hustled over to get all six of them checked in, as I waited another ten minutes or so. The two didn’t excuse themselves or make any statement to me at all. They just left me there. Then the guy in the suit—was he the night manager?—walked back to where I was.

“Is that how it works, then?” I asked, annoyed. “You both  abandon me while I’m trying to check-in to help a group that arrived 20 minutes after I did, while I cool my heels? Is that the Marriott policy?’

“THEY had reservations,” the man said with a sneer.

“What did you just say to me?” I responded. “They had reservations? I have a reservation, and you, the hotel, have clearly screwed up that reservation. That was an asshole thing to say, I resent it, and I will repeat: this is your problem, your error, not mine in any way, and you are going to fix it.”

Yup, I said “asshole,” and I’m glad. His job was to be as polite, attentive, diligent and apologetic as necessary until he addressed my problem successfully. Mine was to be patient and understanding, as long as he did that job. Implying that I was at fault in any way was the watermark of an unprofessional jerk, and it was my duty to make sure he knew it.

Eventually the jerk discovered that indeed I had a reservation, but that it had been mysteriously cancelled. Not by me, of course, and not by my sponsors. That left one possible miscreant: the bungling hotel staff. Somehow, they magically found a vacant room, which by amazing coincidence was right next to the room of my colleague. They said they were going to “force” me into room. Translation: they were not sold out of rooms, and though they never gave me an explanation, the Marriott had indeed screwed up. After an hour at the check-in desk, I finally got a room.

The next morning, as I checked out, another clerk asked me cheerily, “How was your stay, Mr Marshall?”

“Do you really want to know, or is that just a meaningless question?” I asked.

“Oh no, I really want to know!” she replied.

Boy was she sorry…

30 thoughts on “Saturday Night Ethics Fever, 9/21/2019: Crazy Stuff

    • David Brooks is the same guy who did an unfair political hit not on Trump, but on his dad. I’m not interested, and a thinking person shouldn’t be interested, in his masturbatory fantasies about the destruction of those he doesn’t agree with politically. He was probably strumming his bone as he wrote about how the Republican Party became a forever minority.

    • I didn’t read the article, but just to hazard a guess…President Warren was the bestest President ever, wasn’t she? I’m not one to question a time-traveling journalist, so I’ll take his word for it

        • I speak as a theater-operator who had such seats, and an audience member who has successfully demanded them. They depend upon you not knowing the seats exist—once the lie “we;re sold out” becomes untenable and the one demanding a seat shows determination, they sell them.

          • But why insist if they clearly don’t want you there? Why lie in the first place? If someone insisted on pressing after I told him no, I’d tell him no one more time, then tell him to leave or I was going to call the police and have them escort him out.

            • It’s a public accommodation, Steve. They can’t just tell you you can’t stay there, and the PR consequences of behaving as you endorse would be a business-killer They keep rooms and seats open precisely to avoid that.

              • It’s also private property (usually) and your ticket is a limited license for the duration of the event. You can’t tell people you won’t allow them in for prohibited reasons, but if you don’t want to sell the second to last ticket in a row and leave a hard to sell single, or you don’t like the guy personally, I think you have him. I think you can definitely clear the area of a stage door that does not front the public sidewalk to allow the artists to depart in peace, by force if you get pushback.

  1. 2. From the wasteful and pointless protests files: “Hundreds of thousands” of 20-somethings and kids took part in a global protest against “inaction on climate change.” What do they know about climate change? Only what they have been told by agenda- driven activists, teachers and politicians, almost all of them without genuine scientific comprehension of the complexities, vagaries and uncertainty of the topic themselves. Are hundreds of thousands of people who don’t really know what they are talking about more persuasive than, say, one? Should they be?

    No. Leading these innocents to believe otherwise is a cruel joke. Margot Guillen of Harvest Collegiate High School, told Yahoo News she was there to send a message, saying, “By protesting peacefully, it shows how committed our generation is to making a change and showing that we know what’s happening and we need to stop it.” They don’t know what’s happening, though, and they don’t know how to stop “it,” in part because they don’t know what “it” is, when “it” will occur, what the extent of “it” will be, and even whether “it,” whatever “it” is, will occur at all.

    When I learned about the scientific method in school, I was never taught that protests and amrches were part of the method.

    When Andrew Wiles wanted to convince people that Fermat’s Last Theorem was true, did he lead any marches? Write letters to the British Parliament? Use ad hominem attacks against doubters? Argue that even if a counterexample to the theorem existed, we get clean air and water?

    Or did he simply complete the proof?

    What about Watson and Crick? Why did they not lead mass protests to convince people that DNA existed, instead of using that stupid scientific method to carefully describe experiments to prove the existence of DNA.

    Or Albert Einstein? Why, the idea that objects shrink and clock slow down as they move must have sounded preposterous. Why not lead marches to get people to believe in special relativity? accuse doubters of working for Big Oil? Argue that even if special relativity was wrong, we at least get clean air and water?

    Who would have taken Wiles, or Watson, or Crick, or Einstein, or Charles Darwin, or Isaac Newton, or Leonhard Euler, or Terence Tao, or Pythagoras, or Euclid seriously if they resorted to using public marches, instead of publishing proofs and performing experiments, to prove the truth of their theorems?.

  2. Nobody suggests that the marches and protests are part of the ‘scientific method’. They are part of the ‘politics’. The protesters don’t care what you think. They care what you do, and their aim is to change your behaviour. I guess you couldn’t be persuaded to stop burning coal because of some alarmist climate projections But you might well be persuaded not to hold shares in coal mines because of the risk of losing money.

    • How many Olympic medalists have been Trans?

      Apparently there must have been dozens, even hundreds, according to those sites.

      Actual number – zero.

      Meanwhile, regarding their genetic lesson at https://fairplayforwomen.com/chromosomes-biological-sex-gender/ ,,

      J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9
      A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

      This is impossible, according to those sites. So is this :

      A case report of an XX male with complete masculinization but absence of the SrY gene
      Ghalia Abou Alchamat, Marwan Alhlabi, Muhyiddin Issa , Middle East Fertility Society Journal January 2010, Vol.15(1):51–53,

      As the site admits… ” Fair Play For Women is a campaigning and consultancy group…”

      Their Ideology trumps facts, and borrows heavily from the US Religious Right. “Sex is determined at the moment of conception”… so opposite sex monozygotic twins can’t exist. Except they do. Eppur si muove.

        • Give it time? Ok, how many years?
          It’s been 2 decades now without a single one.

          Your thesis is plausible. But surely there would have been at least a shred, a scintilla of factual evidence in support by now? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, unless such evidence could reasonably be expected to be blatantly obvious every year, and many years have passed without any.sign of it.

      • “And yet it moves” or “Albeit it does move” (Italian: E pur si muove or Eppur si muove [epˈpur si ˈmwɔːve]) is a phrase attributed to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in 1633 after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the Sun, rather than the converse. In this context, the implication of the phrase is: despite his recantation, the Church’s proclamations to the contrary, or any other conviction or doctrine of men, the Earth does, in fact, move (around the Sun, and not vice versa).

        Is the new wave of sex-transformation, of gender-shifting, of allowing personal choice to enter into the equation when one desires to be a different gender or *feels* that one is, comparable to Galileo having determined that, in fact, the Earth moves around the Sun and not the opposite?

        Is this what is being essentially asserted? That all of this (which I do not profess to understand fully) is comparable to a revolution in how we perceive ourselves in a cosmic sense?

        What is the origin of this new ‘trend’ as it seems to be in our societies? Why has this suddenly burst out onto the scene? Why has it taken on such power and force? And what interests and what activism stands behind it, giving it support and pushing it forward?

        I have only paid marginal attention to those I understand to be radicals in their assertion of gender-fluidity, and I am of the opinion that this form of radicalism — it is a sort of extremism — can be understood if compared to other forms of such extremism. Note that this gender-extremism is not connected with conservative or traditional thinking and metaphysics. It is important to point this out because, as I imagine to be true, this gender-radicalism is connected with general patterns of radicalism, liberal-radicalism, and thus has a connection to the deliberate destruction of hierarchical systems.

        That is, I gather, why Zoe points out that some of the groups that are active as ‘brakes’ against this gender-radicalism (I do not know what term to use so this will have to suffice) could well have connections and sympathies, as Zoe noted, with ‘the religious right’.

        If this is so then the Religious Right is allied, rhetorically, with those who in previous times tried to enforce a false understanding of cosmic reality by asserting that the Sun turned around the Earth. And those who are gender-activist radicals have a truer grasp of reality — cosmic reality — and are the heralds for important advances that should not be restrained.

        So, let us imagine the removal of all trace of ‘traditionalism’ from our world. Because as I understand it this is what those who hold to the scientific vision as the sole means to understand reality seem to posit. Now the origin of ‘traditionalism’ (religious, cultural, value-based, etc.) arises not out of science and scientific experiment but out of another perceptual means. Idea, intellect (intellectus), vision, even the word ‘understanding’ (of life and the world as having metaphysical aspect) involves *seeing* the world in ways that are not strictly scientific, biological and materialistic. It seems to me to be a simple fact that were we to jettison all of these perceptual modes that are not strictly derived from ‘science’ that we would then reduce knowledge only to scientific and material facts: chemistry essentially.

        So — if you follow me — at the very least one can here notice that we are dealing in very very different epistemes and epistemological systems. Literally radically different ways of seeing, understanding and being in reality.

        Basi Willey proposed that it requires a ‘master metaphysician’ to be able to grasp that we live in an age of radical and dramatic shift caused by the conflict between two very different epistemologies. One must have a relatively profound grasp of the one — the ‘old’ one — and a grasp of the implications of the new one, to be able to understand their battle and their conflict.

        I merely suggest that it makes the understanding of these issues more interesting, more lively and colorful, if one grasp the nature of many of the stark and violent conflicts we notice today. We exist within conflicts and yet we do not fully grasp the metaphysical dimension of them. We can neither see them, the conflicts, not ourselves, the zone where the conflicts play-out, with clarity.

        The metaphysical anchors — if I am permitted such a term — in which Christianity are based are entirely and absolutely metaphysical. You could examine any page in the Catholic Encyclopedia — filled with clear definitions rationally set forth — to see that all of it, nearly absolutely all of it, is grounded in another perceptual base, a very different episteme:

        “Episteme” is a philosophical term derived from the Ancient Greek word ἐπιστήμη epistēmē, which can refer to knowledge, science or understanding, and which comes from the verb ἐπίστασθαι, meaning “to know, to understand, or to be acquainted with”.

        Plato contrasts episteme with “doxa”: common belief or opinion. Episteme is also distinguished from “techne”: a craft or applied practice. The word “epistemology” is derived from episteme.

        Science in our present corresponds to techne and this techne proposes an episteme-of-sorts. But the metaphysical episteme(s) are an entirely separate category of knowledge.

        Those who shall I say ‘get involved’ with religious modes of understanding and perception — say if someone becomes a Christian — have joined something in themselves which is non-material and metaphysical (the soul by their definition) with a ‘reality’ or a source which is, by its nature, super-physical.

        It cannot be located, measured nor even defined. Yet it is the source of ‘idea’ if you take idea in its most exalted sense. What is an ‘idea’? It is non-physical and is a matter of pure metaphysics. Ideas determine everything, yet science is non-capable of understanding ‘idea’ except as a chemical interchange of some sort. Alter the chemistry, I suppose they must conclude, and you alter man, mankind and our being in this world.

        And obviously all of this points in the direction of vast and determining conflicts in modes-of-perception and the ‘authority’ given to each one.

        Got all that? 🙂 We need to see the conflicts that we deal in every day as manifestations of metaphysical battles. The *world* that is developing around us, which with each passing day begins to envelope us and send its *tentacles* in to the inner reaches of our very selves, is a strict materialistic and chemical *world*, and those technicians and managers who have abstracted themselves from the former metaphysical soul-based relationship to higher orders of idea, naturally ally themselves with control-systems and cultural managers.

        I have attempted to explain — or allude to — the nature of the battles that are taking shape in our present. Please keep your responses to under 10,000 words and limit your interest in this and all such topics to that of the life of a gnat: about 7 days . . .

  3. I admire these young champions of sacrifice who will demand the air conditioning of their schools be turned off in the summer, the heat reduced in the winter, who choose to walk to school and their extracurricular activities rather than be driven or drive themselves.

    It is not every day you see kids willingly not demanding the latest gizmo constructed from petrochemicals. I for one say hats off to all those kids telling mom and dad that the trip to Disney or 6 Flags will be an unnecessary contributor to greenhouse gasses so they choose to study the climate models rather than go on the planned vacation.

    Yes, here’s to all those prepubescent and adolescent kids who are so willing to lead the nation in reducing the global temperature by giving up all those unnecessary things that cause emissions.

    BTW, did anyone see any pigs fly today?

  4. Re: #4.
    I worked in hotel management for about 10 years and my long suffering lady friend about triple that. Her last 10 or so years were with Marriott. I read this to her and asked her thoughts.

    A few comments here.
    *First of all, hotels don’t “always” keep an extra room available. (in response to other comments)
    * Not sure why it took two folks to check in a flight crew of 6. Flight crews are usually prekeyed for a quick checkin.
    * I would be interested in knowing in the presentation venue was in the Fair Oaks Marriott. Probably wouldn’t be that great for a presenter to share checkin woes.
    * Speculation only, but I wonder if the client made a reservation for two rooms in the same name, “Jack Marshall.” If the hotel is oversold (or underdeparted, as they like to say), they may cancel one reservation as a duplicate.
    * You need to let Marriott know. If you are a Marriott Rewards member, you should especially be sure to do so. They have a way of making things right.

    • 1) I didn’t say they did. Brit Hume did, and the statement was obviously hyperbole….like “There must always be a wall”…
      2) It took two because they wanted to get away from my problem.
      3) I don’t know what this means, and what “wouldn’t be that great.” i do not accept abuse and poor service because others would rather not know about it.
      4) No, they didn’t. And if they did, why would they cancel the reservation of the one who had the name that was used?
      5) Oh, don’t worry, I’ll let them know.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.