Open Forum, Or “Let’s All Meet At The Street Corner And Sing Ethics Carols!”

Deck the page with rage at TwitterBla bla bla bla bla, bla bla bla blah! ‘Censorship should not seem bitterBla bla bla bla bla, bla bla bla blah! Free expression’s really hatefulBla bla bla, bla bla, bla, bla bla blah!Strangling it could make us grateful…Bla bla bla bla bla, bla bla bla blah!

Sing out, everybody! Cocoa and cookies at my house after!


11 thoughts on “Open Forum, Or “Let’s All Meet At The Street Corner And Sing Ethics Carols!”

    • I do not understand why this is news. Dog bites man. Woman has baby. The VAST majority of school bullying is started by teachers. Most teachers incorporate huge amounts of TV in the classroom. Teachers show R rated movies to students without parental consent. Teachers give different homework to their favorite students. Teachers give different grades for the same answer to different students. It snows in the Rockies.

      Teacher gets disciplined for doing what many if not most of my teachers did while I was in school, ok, maybe that gets closer to dog bites man.

      Seriously, this doesn’t even sound very serious. It does fall under “why I homeschool” but this teacher seems pretty standard to me. Are we sure this wasn’t Mrs. Archer?

  1. Advertising ethics:

    Remember when the Michael Jackson documentary came out and so streaming services and cable TV announced they would remove the Jackson-voiced episode, a classic by “Simpsons” fans’ standards?

    FXX, the cable station showing episodes at the time, kept running the ads, “Every ‘Simpsons’ Ever” despite it being clear that it wasn’t every episode.

    Recently, I ran into an ad on Facebook, the NBC-affiliated streaming service, announcing that it was offering every episode of SNL.

    Commenters quickly responded that the platform may offer every episode but not every episode in its entirety. Like many shows that included musical numbers and guest stars in the days before DVD and streaming residuals were ever thought of (the “Batman” TV show has a similar problem), SNL doesn’t include the musical numbers or some skits involving guest starts. If you want to see Elvis Costello restart a song or Sinead O’Connor rip up the Pope’s picture, you’re out of luck. Peacock apparently either can’t get the rights to the musical numbers performed on its show or just doesn’t want to pay for them.

    Some of the episodes are less than 15 minutes long for this reason.

    Further, many episodes of classic TV shows are edited as if they were being shown in syndicated reruns on streaming platforms. Why should streaming platforms worry about the time allotted for commercials? Just keep the episode intact and include commercials. Many streaming shows have odd durations per episode.

    I loaded up an episode of “The Six Million Dollar Man” the other day in order to see the scenes involving a guest star who wasn’t famous then but has achieved a certain recognition in the interim. One memorable scene is available on YouTube but is nowhere to be found on any streaming services’ version of the episode.

    So, streaming ethics then? If the platform is only showing mere minutes of a program and advertising that it has every episode of the show, is that misleading? Should streaming episodes of old TV shows be shown in their cut-for-syndication version when the length of the show shouldn’t matter in this format?

  2. I’ve recently heard of two different instances of deaths in car wrecks due to the negligence of the driver of the other car. However both of the deceased were not wearing seat belts and would most likely have survived with minor injuries were they wearing them (as others did in their vehicles who were wearing seat belts). In one circumstance, the driver at fault was passing over a hill in a no passing zone. In the second, the driver at fault was drunk and speeding, and basically rammed the other car off the road.
    What criminal charges, if any, should be leveled against the drivers at fault related to the deaths? Should the lack of seat belts factor into the charges (or lack there of)? (These are both friend-of-a-friend situations, so I don’t know the outcome of either)

    • No. Somewhat similar to the eggshell skull rule. They are still culpable for the accident and at fault, even if the deceased could have avoided the death with a level of caution.

      • Agreed. A criminal who breaks into a house by walking through an unlocked door may have been stopped by the lock, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t commit a crime because the door was unlocked. The door being unlocked is immaterial to there having been a crime, despite it making the crime easier to commit.

        • … A criminal who breaks into a house by walking through an unlocked door may have been stopped by the lock, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t commit a crime because the door was unlocked…

          I have somewhere heard that the essence of breaking in breaking and entering is that the perpetrator must do something to facilitate entering by altering the situation, not necessarily amounting to damage. So merely turning a door handle and/or swinging a door open would qualify, but walking through an already open door would not. And, of course, theft or vandalism could still occur even without breaking and entering.

        • The other person being more fragile doesn’t change the level of fault. It’s irrelevant.

          If it was a deliberate crash, homicide. Accidental, manslaughter. The latter sounds more apropriate, given that you specified negligence.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.