Comment of the Day

It’s Comment Of The Day Sunday! First Up: COTD On “Stop Making Me Defend Eric Swalwell!”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Once again, I’m waaaay behind in posting deserving Comments of the Day, so this will be the first of several posted today. Long-time commenter Dwayne N. Zechman tackled the question of why the belief in Natural Law does not require belief in God, and did a superb job.

Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, “Stop Making Me Defend Eric Swalwell!”:

***

“The problem is how do you convey the idea that natural rights simply exist without suggesting a creator?”

The same way you convey the idea that GRAVITY simply exists without suggesting a creator. Or take your pick of any basic, unmoving truth that exists as a part of the existence of the Universe: Newton’s laws of motion, Conservation of Mass, Conservation of Energy, tidal forces, the way water almost uniquely expands when it freezes instead of contracts, the list goes on and on.

What all of these things have in common with mankind’s natural rights is that they undoubtedly exist, and that their existence is NOT the result of any human being anywhere making a decision that they should exist.

One can dive deeper into the actual reason and possibly conclude that there is a “Creator” of some sort or not, but it doesn’t change the basic tenet that such things do exist, have always existed, and will always exist–and no human decision, be it individual or collective, can change that. Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Electric Cars And The Following The Science” Lie

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

Come to Ethics Alarms for the mile-wide and inch deep reflections of the ethicist, stay for the enhancement, perspective and enlightening analysis by the readers who know what they are writing about.

Sarah B.’s superb Comment of the Day needs no more introduction, and besides, don’t read me on this topic when you should be reading her.

Here is her COTD on the post,”Electric Cars And The “Following The Science” Lie.”

***

First, anyone who says “follow the science” has forgotten what science means. Science is a process that states a method for determining the most likely reason for something. Science requires us to observe a phenomenon, hypothesize about the phenomenon, posit a fair test of the hypothesis, complete the test several times with the same inputs, and compare the results of the tests with the observed phenomenon. The better correlated the test with reality, the better the hypothesis and the more likely it is to be true. Conversely, if you cannot replicate your test or your test or your test does not correlate well with reality, it is either time to scrap the test or the hypothesis.

Anthropogenic climate change is not science by the centuries old definition. The tests are mostly unable to be replicated, and the results have been proven false, time and again. To follow the science, it is time to scrap that hypothesis and move on.

Second, I was amazed to see such low requirements for electric cars to validate their “green” existence. Most studies I have read on this subject put the threshold far closer to 100,000 miles before even coming close. The best I have seen before this one puts us nearer to 75,000 miles than 25,000 miles.

Third, this study only deals with the formulation of the battery. If one considers where we are getting the energy, and as other commenters have noted, solar and wind are not nearly so clean as you would like to think. Heck, think of all the chemicals that need to go into making those panels, even though they cannot give us power 24/7/365 like burning fossil fuels. Life cycle analyses on electric cars, considering batteries, electricity, grid concerns, etc tend to push them to obscene mileage, well above expected battery life. In this instance, they are not unlike windmills, with an expected 30 year life and a 37-52 year payback period, sans government intervention.

Fourth, no one bothers, when discussing electric vehicle, to discuss the basic laws of thermodynamics. These laws are just like the laws of gravity, not caring whether or not you like them. They don’t care what is fair. They don’t care what is socially acceptable. They don’t care if they inconvenience some more than others, because if you are too stupid to get on the wrong side of these laws, you will pay the price. So, thermodynamics state that whenever one transforms matter to energy, or energy to another type of energy, or energy to matter, that there will be a loss in total energy. To take a simple example, we get most electricity by burning coal. The rock is in the ground. We have to spend energy to get it out of the ground and pulverized. Now we’ll start into some of the math. Coal is burned. The gas is used to make steam, the steam is used to turn a turbine that makes electricity. The gas is cleaned. This process has a maximum theoretical efficiency of around 45%. Most of the power plants run at about 33% because theoretical efficiency is not anywhere close to real world possiblity. So for every 100 units of energy the coal gives off, you get 33%.

Let’s now get some minor math happening for electric cars. I’m going to skip the big equations and use easily available numbers from reputable sites. For this exercise, we are going to assume that preparing coal for electric generation uses the same amount of energy as preparing gasoline for car consumption, as gasoline and coal are equivalent primary sources, but electricity is not a primary energy source unless you are hooking up your power lines to silk kites. Now, a car that gets gasoline loses 64-75% on inefficiencies and powering auxiliaries. So a car that was given 100 units of power from gasoline gets 25 units of power when all is said and done, with the WORST assumptions on gasoline cars. Continue reading →

Open Forum! Abuse Me!

/ Jack Marshall / 50 Comments

Welcome to my world! Here is what greeted me this morning: a virtuoso hate rant from some student or faculty member at the University of Akron:

Ay, Cracker Jack! You spelled “border” wrong, you ethnonationalist, neoconservatice, warmongering, cop-calling pussy. We will flood this country one way or another, and no stupid fucking wall is going to stop us. I use my bullshit millions, generated by zero effort and a fuckton of capital gains, to fucking fly pregnant refugee women here on workers visas, and I buy them a legal path to citizenship once the anchor babies are delivered by various local obstetricians. Your little one vote every other year isn’t going to do shit to stop me and my rich ass, militant progressive friends from fucking over rich wite people and shoveling Black and Brown folks into the fucking voting booths. Suck my dick, you pretentious coward in centrist’s clothing.

It’s no wonder you didn’t even mention Trump’s two most egregious serial crimes: mass housing discrimination and multiple sexual assaults. But it makes sense. You support the same shit. You just don’t like his lack of decorum and politeness. Because you would love if the non-puritanical shit gets swept under the rug. You favored a Bush or Reagan world…where genocide, war crimes, mass incarceration and racist economics are passed off as “Trade Deals, Fighting Terror, Stopping Crime & The Free Market”. Trump wants “Caligula” and you’d rather have “Handmaid’s Tale”, you pathetic, heliophobic bootlicking bitch’s bitch.

No amount of moral grandstanding against Trump–in favor of some other puppet of a billionaire with lobbyist strings, mind you––will ever make you seem like a man whose partner is faithful. Your wife, if you miraculously have one, fucks and sucks every dick darker than tumbleweed that she can get her hands on. Now get your head out of your undoubtedly flabby ass and your “nonpartisan” pigs out of my way, so we, the men of color in your favorite cuckold pornos, can finally fight hand-to-hand with the Klan that you pretend to disavow. [Mic Drop]

Observations:

  • I did NOT spell border wrong in the post this landed on, but I often do; I also frequently misspell “receive,” “Michael” and some other things wrong as well, when I’m not making typos. Note the this comment misspelled “white,” unless “wite” is a thing now.
  • The screen name was “SEEYOUNEXTTUESDAY.” Is that a threat?
  • The screed is not unskilled. I can’t tell if the writer really is deranged, is parodying derangement, or thinks this is what I expect from the deranged.
  • I love starting my day by reading stuff like this. It happens more often than you would think.
  • That’s a still from “Billions.” The show’s prosecutor protagonist, played by the wonderful Paul Giamatti (“John Adams,” and former Commissioner of Baseball Bart Giamatti’s son), has an S&M kink.
  • No, the comment is NOT getting through moderation…

But I digress.

Sorry

This is your shot to write about whatever you want to, as long as it’s ethics.

Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Quiz: Hitler’s Watch”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Once again, I have proven to be a lousy prognosticator when it comes to which posts will generate the liveliest discussions. The Ethics Quiz about the propriety of buying Adolf Hitler’s watch provoked many excellent comments and trenchant observations, and Steve-O-In NJ’s Comment of the Day is certainly among them.

Here it is…

***

Something as unique and personal as Hitler’s watch probably belongs in a museum, but if a private person owns it, he has the right to sell it. My question is why would anyone want something like that and what would he do with it once he had it? Doesn’t that say something about the buyer? People collect all kinds of odd things, but collecting something like this is odder than most.

As a Roman Catholic, I was brought up on the idea that certain amounts of power remained within certain objects, especially physical remains. That’s why Church altars often hold holy relics, the more important the church, the more important the relics it holds. There was some serious fear when the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris had that fire a few years back that the crown of thorns, supposedly worn by Christ Himself, and the tunic of St Louis, worn by that saintly King on crusade, would be destroyed and with them the physical link to those personages. I don’t think the belief in relics and similar items is unique to Catholicism, I think it was around long before that. Supposedly the tree that Siddhartha achieved enlightenment under, the burning bush where Moses received his mission from God, and the three items that the sun goddess Amaterasu gave to the first emperor of Japan all exist still. You can see the first two if you are willing to travel, the three items are kept at the Great Ise Shrine in Japan and none but the appointed guardian clerics are allowed to see them.

I think that the human belief that after revered or reviled figures are no longer in this world that something of them remains and can be accessed via whatever physical links there are transcends modern religion and goes back to very early beliefs. The belief that certain symbols have certain power is also a very ancient belief, and why, to this day, we all seem to believe that the display of the cross will repulse a vampire or similar creature. Does any of this make logical sense? Not really, but we are humans, not Vulcans, and therefore the feelings associated with these beliefs remain part of us.

Those feelings can be played upon and amplified, of course, and a lot of individuals do just that, to harness them and hopefully lead others into doing as they say or making the leap from feeling to action. Symbols can serve as points to rally around or against and focusing points for causes. That’s why in the various crusades and jihads it was common for the victor to throw down symbols of the defeated.

Supposedly, in this modern era, we are supposed to have moved past giving these symbols inordinate amounts of power. However, certain political figures have found that rallying against certain symbols is a shortcut to power and mob rule. There is a certain level of dopamine rush that goes with feeling like you’re a righteous member of a righteous cause, and  another kind of  thrill that goes with destroying a symbol that someone says is bad. The problem is that, like any other kind of addiction, it becomes harder and harder to get the same amount of high with the same actions. Eventually you graduate to hurting and even killing others that you associate with whatever is opposed to your righteous cause.

There is nothing per se unethical about dealing in historical artifacts, whether they be associated with those were thought of as very good or those who are thought of as very evil. Any unethical actions lie within the use of those artifacts. Would I personally want to own some item that was personally possessed by a genocidal dictator? Not really. Do I have a problem with someone else owning such an item? No. Do I have a problem with such an item being displayed in a museum? No. Destroying the physical reminders of History is ultimately unhelpful.

Do I wonder what the owner or buyer of such an item is thinking? Yes. However, unless I actually discuss it with him, I don’t get to assume he’s a bad guy. Am I going to empower someone who claims victimhood to insist on the concealment or destruction of anything? No. I think the sanctification of victimhood ultimately leads to the pussification of society.

Comment Of The Day: “The Incredible Sabrina Caldwell Ethics Train Wreck”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Tom P. has contributed an inspiring and thoughtful Comment of The Day in response to the disturbing but ultimately uplifting story of how a Russian orphan, abused by her American adoptive parents, not only survived and thrived (that’s Sabrina today with her family, above), but did so without succumbing to bitterness and despair.

Tom’s first line in his comment is especially provocative, I think. When are “we given” that one life we have the opportunity to do with what we can? Isn’t it at the moment a unique genetic being comes into existence, with the living biochemical capacity to develop and grow if others don’t interfere for their own reasons to stop the process? If that is the case, and I do not see any way to deny it with intellectual honesty, how can abortion activists argue their position without dealing with the existence of two lives in the abortion equation, and not only the mother’s?

But the rest of Tom P.’s Comment of the Day on the two-part post, “The Incredible Sabrina Caldwell Ethics Train Wreck,” is equally thought-provoking. Here it is:

***

We are each given but one life and it is up to us and only us how we choose to live it. In the United States at least, except for our genetics and eventually dying everything else is of our choosing. That is not to say that everything is within our control or that our choices come without consequences. Basically, regardless of the situation each of us can control the choice but not the outcome.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Comment Of The Day: ‘Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem'”

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I always learn something when legendary Ethics Alarms commenter Mrs. Q rejoins the fray. This Comment of the Day, sparked by Null Pointer’s COTD on the post, “Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem,” is especially enlightening and provocative.

I am also thrilled that the controversial T-Rex emoji, which Ethics Alarms discussed last week, has made it into a post!

***

“You have one group of people using another group of people for likes and specialness without regard to the effects it has on the group being used.”

This is why more and more groups of gays are separating away from the whole LGBTQ+ industrial complex. For too long the T has been piggybacking on the struggles of the LGB’s when the two issues are totally different. Worse, now the same groups that once advocated for gay/bi equality, like the HRC and other pride groups, are redefining gay to mean “same-gender identity attraction” rather than same-sex attraction.” According to these new LBG groups, this is gay erasure because it takes biological sex out of the equation.

One of the most concerning things about this piggybacking is that now we see acceptance for gays dwindling because gays are being conflated with trans and it’s assumed gays are okay with transing kids or exposing them to kink and pervy drag queens, or letting men win in women’s sports. I’m already seeing articles about how gay marriage started all this and that if we get rid of marriage equality, somehow that will magically make the insanity of the radical trans activists go away.

Then you have those T radicals who say that gays who don’t want to be a part of the rainbow mafia are TERFS or “cisgender genital fetishists” or transphobes. Younger lesbians especially are getting the brunt of these assertions and are being pressured to sleep with men who claim to be lesbians, in a show of solidarity or overcoming their “sexual racism” and “unlearning their genital biases.” Any woman who dares to bring up this phenomenon is immediately labeled a TERF and the consequences aren’t always pretty. 🦖 Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem”

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Before I present Tom P.’s Comment of the Day, one of several excellent reader reactions to the post, indulge me as I respond in detail to a slur on me by the now-banned commenter who claimed that associating transgender individuals with a “problem” evoked a fascist mindset and the genocidal intent of Hitler’s “final solution.” It was this repeatedly nasty commenter’s doubling down on his accusation that finally moved me to ban him after multiple warnings from me and his repeated defiance of appropriate discourse here.

The guy was a relentless progressive troll, though a relatively smart one, and fair debate was not on his agenda. What has become a routine tactic among such partisans here and elsewhere is to attempt to constrain language in order to make coherent arguments against Leftist cant more difficult, and also to play cognitive dissonance games by attaching sinister and discredited figures, positions and rhetoric to legitimate discourse that the ideologues don’t want to deal with fairly, or can’t.

Of course I wasn’t thinking of “the Jewish Problem,” as it was characterized by Hitler and his minions when I titled the post “Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem,” but even if that abuse of the term “problem” had popped into my mind, it wouldn’t have dissuaded me. One dishonest and dastardly use of language for propaganda purposes cannot and should not restrict the legitimate use of the same words by others.

Germany had no “Jewish problem.” Germany’s Jewish community was among the most productive, loyal and successful ethnic groups in the nation. Hitler slandered these innocent citizens with the false claim that their religion, race and culture made them a threat to civilization, and did so with the specific goal of creating popular supports tor exterminating them. This history, I was told, meant that anyone assessing any group of any kind as a “problem” is unethical.

This is all part of the now familiar race-baiting, dog-whistling, political correctness “gotcha!” strategy used by various interest groups on the left to stifle legitimate discussion and to brand adversaries as unfit for the public square. I won’t play. If I was going to criticize the title of that post, it would be on the basis that the headline suggested that the problem discussed in the essay, the difficulty of determining whether trangenderism should be regarded as abnormal, was the only “transgender problem.” There are, of course, many. Problem: How do we ethically integrate true transgender individuals into gender-segregated sports? Problem: How does society simultaneously eliminate the stigma attached to individuals coping with serious gender identity issues without encouraging gender confusion among the young? There are others.

As for the blanket assertion that it is unethical to designate any group as a problem as far as public policy and ethical treatment goes, I reject it completely. Too many groups pose serious and difficult problems for society to mention them all, but some that come to my mind immediately, remembering that even problematic groups have members who present possible solutions to the problems or who may make valuable contributions to it, are:

  • Illegal immigrants.
  • Corporations
  • Koran-obeying Muslims
  • Unmarried parents
  • Black Lives Matters members and supporters
  • Trump supporters
  • Ideologues
  • Racists
  • Billionaires
  • The homeless
  • Alcoholics
  • Drug addicts, users and peddlers
  • Ignorant citizens
  • Stupid people.
  • Sexual predators
  • Incels
  • White supremacists
  • Journalists
  • Teachers, professors and school administrators…

I could go on and on. The fact that I regard these and other groups as creating problems (perhaps it would have been better have used “challenge” rather than “problem”….but it was only a headline) for American society today does not mean that I advocate wiping them off the face of the earth.

Here is Tom P.’s Comment of the Day on the post “Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem”…

***

The whole furor surrounding transgenderism is multifaceted. This is true of virtually all polarizing issues. Pick any polarizing issue and within the pro and con camps, you will find the following subcamps: radical activists, passionate true believers, opportunists, virtue signaling supporters, go-a-longs to get-a-longs, and casual non-vocal supporters. Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem”

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

This provocative Comment of the Day by Null Pointer is at least three distinct discourses in one. I will eschew me usual introductory framing attempts and leave what will, I hope, be a rich and diverse discussion to the comments to the Comment, on the post, “Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem”…

***

I would refer to homosexuality as normal but atypical. Before the LGBTQ+ activist brigade went bat guano crazy, I considered transgenderism to be the same, biologically based but extremely atypical, even more so than homosexuality. Then the crazy people started screaming from the roof tops about gender being a social construct, completely divorced from biology, and began preaching the merits of gender fluidity along with a host of other “genders” for which the definitions sound like the were written by someone experiencing an LSD induced hallucinogen state.

I still think there are a small minority of people with atypical brain biology who are legitimately transgender. I think there is a much larger cohort of people with personality disorders who need Jesus. Those people have appointed themselves spokespeople for the transgender community. It is never a good idea to let obnoxious, crazy people be your the face of your community. Narcissistic personality disorder is not endearing. Histrionic personality disorder does not lend itself to coherent argument. Brainwashing people’s children into “changing” their gender against the parents’ will or sparking mass hysteria events in teenage girls and autistic young people is not beneficial to society in the slightest. Anarchists and authoritarians are the only communities benefiting from this mess. Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day On The Unethical Political Squeeze On Non-Profits And Foundations [Open Forum]

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Veteran commenter Humble Talent contributed a needed post on an important issue that Ethics Alarms has negligently ignored: the efforts by ideologically drive governments to control the charitable activities of non-profit organizations. The phenomenon extends well beyond the aspect HT discusses: I encountered it with my non-profit theater company. We stubbornly refused to allow grant money to determine our artistic choices, but most theaters were not so resolute. Companies that choose trendy progressive ideology-advancing plays and that cast according to thinly disguised minority group quotas get the money, and letting money drive are leads to bad art: it’s one of many reasons I decided to close the American Century Theater’s doors.

Humble’s Comment of the Day, from this Open Forum, is a cautionary tale. Here it is:

***

I’m on the board of a Community Foundation associated with The Community Foundations of Canada (CFC). The CFC recently had a change in leadership after a wave of retirements, and the new leadership is, not to put too fine a point on it, insufferably woke. Every meeting is predicated by a litany of talk about personal privilege and land declarations. Every new initiative includes language about anti-racism or the importance of DIE. It’s creating issues.

Community foundations operate endowment funds. We take in dollars from our donors, invest them wisely, steward the money, and disburse the proceeds net our expenses into our community. We are non-profits, so we’re tax exempt, and that’s wonderful, but it comes with some requirements: Regardless of how well the market does, we are required by law to disburse at least 3.5% of our funds back into the market on an annual basis. That’s referred to as the “Disbursement Quota” or DQ. We’ve always done better than that. Our positions are public, and we disburse on average 4.5% going back to the community (it varies a little) and budget a .75% management fee for overhead (mostly staff), which we’re never over. Depending on by how much we beat budget, we treat the difference as a kind of emergency fund for out-of-cycle disbursements (we recently hired a translator for the middle school from that pool). We fund investments to the local hospital, the schools, the golf course, the local theatre, the museum, kids sports, social groups, the Salvation Army… The list goes on. In an average year we’ll have maybe 50 requests and depending on the specific asks and our capacity, about 2/3 of them will get at least partially funded.

This, we are told, is not enough. We are hoarding treasure, we are told. We are underserving our communities, we are told. Regardless of how the donors directed their funds, we should ignore their wishes and find some brown people to give money to, we are told… Perhaps not so directly, but I shit you not, that’s the spirit of that has been said. Last year, the government of Canada bandied the idea about of raising the DQ from 3.5% to 5%, or even 10%. In response, the CFC, who is supposed to represent us, said: “Yes please Mr. Government, please pillage our funds. Please fund your short term political aspirations out of our funds and destroy what community-minded people have spent a lifetime building.”

I kid, of course, they didn’t say that. What they said was, and I quote:

“The disbursement quota was created to make sure charities were moving resources to address societal needs. Many conversations around the disbursement quota have been debating percentages. Should it be 3.5%? 5%? 10%?

These conversations tend to be reductive and risk being a distraction at a moment when the federal government can play a critical role in better enabling philanthropic organizations to meet the needs of their communities now and into the future.” Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “The Mark Of A Totalitarian: Michael Moore’s ‘Replacement’ For The Second Amendment”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

I assumed Michael Moore’s epic idiocy in the form of a “new amendment” would provoke some lively responses. Among the liveliest was this Comment of the Day from one of longest running active commenter (and one of few I’ve had the pleasure to meet face-to-face, Tim LeVier.

Tim makes the timely observation that Moore doesn’t understand what a “right” is in American tradition, and indeed there’s a lot of that going around. Part of the Left’s fury over not only the SCOTUS opinion reaffirming the Second Amendment but its long-overdue erasure of the imaginary “right to abortion.” Numerous ideological scholars are now attacking the Founders and their Constitution as archaic because they didn’t understand the more expansive concept of “rights” favored by progressives. They want recognition of a right to make a living wage, a right to have a home, a right to have enough food, and so on, ad infinitem. That inflated concept of “rights” is the predominant one in socialist and communist societies. They don’t work, you know. Usually the nations gulled into either system fail spectacularly. However, all those “rights” sound great in theory: the problem is that all require an efficient, trustworthy government that won’t abuse the almost limitless power maintaining such a society requires. Isn’t there an old saying about that? I seem to remember one.

The first stirrings of serious socialist aspirations in high places emanated from none other than President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who always had a dangerous measure of dictatorial aspirations in his soul. In his famous Four Freedoms speech, he endorsed loose talk about “Freedom from Fear” and “Freedom from Want” to accompany the basic First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom the worship. “Freedom from Fear” sums up Moore’s insidious “28th Amendment” and “Freedom from Want” is an open invitation to the nanny state., or worse. FDR was pandering when he launched this irresponsible rhetoric, at a time when poverty was rampant, there was an unhealthy and growing popular attachment to Communism, and when he was also rallying support for a war against Nazi Germany. Calling these universal freedoms that all people possess—in other words, rights— was metaphorically playing with dynamite that could blow up democracy.

It still is.

Here is Tim LeVier’s Comment of the Day on the post, “The Mark Of A Totalitarian: Michael Moore’s “Replacement” For The Second Amendment.”

***

Too bad he doesn’t understand what a “right” is. You have a right to exist and create safe conditions for yourself, but you do not have a “right” to protection. If we had a “right to protection”, the Uvalde police officers would be on death row at this moment. No. Police a.k.a. the government, is for maintaining the peace if possible, but restoring peace and cleaning up after tragedy is more correct to their mission. Continue reading →