idiots

From The Law vs. Ethics Files: The ‘Be My Guest, Rob My Anti-2nd Amendment Neighbor’ Sign

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

Gun Lawn Sign

I can’t seem to find out for certain if anyone has been so vile and foolish as to actually put up the sign shown above. (That photo is obviously fake.) Even if there are genuine photos posted somewhere, I doubt that such a sign would ever be left up for long. I could be wrong.

It’s probably not protected speech, as the sentiment invites violence toward another citizen. It is undoubtedly unethical speech, just like signs that say “My neighbor’s door sticker saying the house has burglar alarms is a bluff” or “The lady next door is beautiful and incapacitated” or “The little girl next door is excessively trusting.”

Yet the sign shown above is sold on line. Selling a sign with a dangerous, hateful and irresponsible message is legal. This one is also completely unethical. I know: it’s a joke.  I don’t care. To sell a sign that you know might cause harm if anyone used it as a sign is still indefensible, especially since we know how many Americans voted for Donald Trump.

In other words, there are a frightening number of hateful, reckless fools out there.

The company selling these abominations is called Zazzle.

Treat the company appropriately.

Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: Idaho State Representative Pete Nielsen (R-Mountain Home)

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments
Now, do I think Pete doesn't look too bright only because I know he isn't too bright? I think so...

Now, do I think Pete doesn’t look too bright only because I know he isn’t too bright? I think so…

There are two reasons to deride Rep. Nielsen. First, by his own words he is marked as an idiot unworthy not only off high office but of public trust, and second, he either has  been paying no attention to epic, infamous, well-publicized catastrophes in his own party, or doesn’t have a brain pan of sufficient depth to comprehend them.

Surely you remember Todd Akin, the Missouri GOP Senate candidate in 2012, who blew his party’s chances of taking a eminently winnable seat from the horrible Claire McCaskill by uttering this nonsense on the issue of whether rape-caused pregnancies should be an exception to abortion restrictions:

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down…”

He was ridiculed, he was attacked, he was mocked, and from all parties and ideologies, for his magical theory that a woman’s body knows the difference between “legitimate rape” and the nice kind of sexual intercourse. (Oddly, none of those “doctors” ever came forward, perhaps because they were wearing diapers and had turnips sticking out of their ears. Somehow, Pete Nielsen missed all of that, and so during a debate in the Idaho Legislature on bill that would require women seeking abortions to be given a list of providers of free ultrasounds, when it was noted that the measure makes no exception for victims of rape or incest, he piped up with this:

“Now, I’m of the understanding that in many cases of rape it does not involve any pregnancy because of the trauma of the incident. That may be true with incest a little bit.”

Now, if he had been immediately pelted with wadded up papers, soda cans and other things by his  horrified colleagues, may be would have had the sense to stop digging, but, being an idiot, he didn’t. Asked how he knew this absolute non-medical non-fact as reliable as the theory that you can catch AIDS from a toilet seat, Nielsen said, “That’s information that I’ve had through the years. Whether it’s totally accurate or not, I don’t know. “I read a lot of information. I have read it several times. … Being a father of five girls, I’ve explored this a lot.”

Wait, what? Never mind, I don’t want to think about that last part. Continue reading →

Barbra Gives An Ethics And Intelligence Test!

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Streisand tweet

Quick, now: what is Babs missing, other than the basic ethics principle that “Everybody does it” is not a justification or an excuse for unethical conduct?

Yes Indeed, Elite College Grads Can Still Be Civically Incompetent Fools

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments
They have been rumored, and caught in dubious, fuzzy photos, but does an intelligent, rational Donald Trump supporter really exist? The quest continues...

They have been rumored, and caught in dubious, fuzzy photos, but does an intelligent, rational Donald Trump supporter really exist? The quest continues…

In my constant quest to find someone, anyone, who can defend their support of Donald Trump with a substantive argument rather than the emotional, nonsensical rationalizations I have heard and read so far, I came upon  a USA Today essay by “Weekly Standard” contributing right-winger Charlotte Allen—she is kind of like Ann Coulter, but not funny— called “Why a Stanford grad joined the Trump revolt.” I was momentarily thrilled, then my hopes were immediately dashed. The answer to the headline’s question is simply “Because graduates of prestigious schools can be just as irresponsible and ignorant as anyone else.” Her pathetic essay proves it.

To begin with, appeal to authority is a lazy debate fallacy (“Proposition X is valid because Authority A says so”—you know, like “bats are blind because Neil De Grasse Tyson says so”…), but appealing to your own authority is ridiculous. “I went to Stanford, and I voted for Donald Trump. So did my husband. He went to Yale,” Allen begins. The required response: Who the hell cares? The only people who think a degree means you are smart are dumb people, some of whom have impressive degrees themselves.

Now, the essay could have been so dazzling in its pro-Trump logic that it simultaneously redeemed Trump supporters and the two schools the piece embarrasses. It was not.

The essay begins with the boot-strapping argument that it isn’t ignorant and irresponsible to vote for Trump because in Massachusetts a lot of educated people voted for him. “Low-information voter” doesn’t mean uneducated voter, however. It means people who aren’t paying attention, or who filter out information they don’t want to hear, or who are informed in some areas but get their political news from partisan websites and cable stations.  Continue reading →

Yes, Ethics Dunce Madonna Indeed Engaged in Sexual Assault On Stage In Australia

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Why would anyone think otherwise?

From the Guardian:

It began when 17-year-old Josephine Georgiou joined the singer [above] on stage during her second evening at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre.

“She’s the kind of girl you just want to slap on the ass,” the singer said admiringly of the barista and would-be model standing next to her. “And pull,” Madonna added, yanking down the girl’s strapless top to briefly reveal one breast, to aghast cheers from the crowd.

From The Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: The Kids For Sale “Joke”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

taped kids

Memphis, Tennessee Facebook user Jaton Justsilly Jaibabi posted this photo of her two small children with duct tape over their mouths and cuffing their wrists, with the legend, “Kids for sale, 45% because they bad.”

Now the Memphis police are investigating. I don’t know why the investigation is necessary; this is signature significance; No responsible parent who can be trusted with the delicate job of raising children would do this to them. It is also an example of what the law calls res ipsa loquitur: “the thing speaks for itself.” This is child abuse, and the woman responsible for it is a child abuser. No other interpretation is possible.

In fact, the poster, who has ended her Facebook account, appears to be part of an entire family that should be considered a societal menace. Jaibabi’s cousin, Derion King, explained that this was just a practical joke, writing in part,

“Basically a joke at the moment that people just went overboard about. People make mistakes and that’s what this situation is, a lesson learned. They are safe, unharmed, and loved. That’s all it is to it.”

There are eight incorrect, idiotic or unethical statements in this 36 word statement: impressive! And frightening. Here they are: Continue reading →

KABOOM! The Worst Presidential Endorsement Ever From The Biggest Fool Ever To Run For President

/ Jack Marshall / 77 Comments
"Excuse me, Can someone direct me to Dr. Carson's head?"

“Excuse me. Can someone direct me to Dr. Carson’s head?”

I must admit, I’m a little annoyed at my head for exploding this time, even given the provocation. After all, it involves Ben Carson, and I assumed that the small but nauseating doses of Ben Carson idiocy I was forced to listen to during all those debates served as an anti-head explosion vaccination of sorts, though if Donald Trump is to believed, which of course he isn’t, I was risking autism. I assumed there wasn’t anything the deluded doctor could say that would be so stupid and outrageous that it could cause a brain-pan eruption at this point. Obviously, as I stare up at the brain-splattered ceiling in my office, I was wrong.

I now realize that Ben Carson may be the only living human being alive whom I would consider voting for Donald Trump to keep out of the Presidency. I’m not certain, mind you, but it’s stunning to me that anyone is even close to that bad. What would a choice between Trump and Dr. Ben be like? It would be like choosing between Billionaire Biff in “Back to the Future II” and Chance, the well-meaning, lucky moron in “Being There.“ It would be like choosing between Mister Burns and Homer Simpson.

When Carson announced he was endorsing Trump, some pundit wrote that it was “huge.” I tried to imagine the kind of voter who would regard the judgment of a manifest dim-wit like Carson a persuasive reason to vote for a massive fraud like Donald Trump. See, endorsements are silly all by themselves, unless you are just lost. Who is so devoid of pride and self-confidence that they think, “Well, I admire X, and thus I will assume that X’s judgement about who I should vote for to lead my country is better than my own”?*

Now imagine someone thinking that when the endorsement comes from someone who isn’t wearing pants, has a gooney bird nesting on his head, and is carrying a sign that says “Kourtney Kardashsian is God.” What kind of a person is persuaded by that fool’s presidential choice? Yet Ben Carson, with his bizarre belief about how the best person to handle the most difficult job in the world would be someone with no relevant skills or experience whatsoever—let’s not even get into his beliefs about pyramids and other matters—is no less ridiculous than the pantless goony bird character, and a lot more arrogant.

Endorsing Donald Trump is foolish, but no surprise when a Ben Carson—you know, a moron— is the endorser. Today, however, he “explained” his endorsement, and revealed that it was even more incompetent and irresponsible than an endorsement of an atrocious candidate is by nature.

Interviewed  on the “Steve Malzberg Show” yesterday, Carson explained that..

I. He wasn’t really all that sure that Trump would be a good President. See, Ben, an endorsement is supposed to tell people that you have decided that a candidate is the best candidate, and that generally is taken to mean that the endorser at least thinks he would be a good President. Ben is apparently from the Bizarro Planet, however, and he said…

“Even if Donald Trump turns out not to be such a great president, which I don’t think is the case — I think he’s going to surround himself with really good people — but even if he didn’t, we’re only looking at four years, as opposed to multiple generations and perhaps the loss of the American dream forever.”

Wait—who is running against Trump who will be elected for  “multiple generations” ? What the heck is Carson babbling about?

Get the gooney bird! But it got worse.

At least Carson thinks Trump is the best of a bad lot, right? Well, not exactly. Here’s Ben:

“I didn’t see a path for Kasich, who I like, or for Rubio, who I like. As far as  Cruz is concerned, I don’t think he’s gonna be able to draw independents and Democrats unless has has some kind of miraculous change… Is there another scenario that I would have preferred? Yes. But that scenario isn’t available.”

“With one of the other candidates, you mean?” Malzberg asked.

“Yes,” Carson replied.

What exactly does Carson think helps about a Presidential endorsement that is accompanied by the disclaimers that he isn’t really sure his candidate will be very good at the job, and that he would have preferred to endorse any of three other candidates? Does Carson think? Can he think? Continue reading →

Would Gun Rights Advocates Support “Jamie’s Law”?

/ Jack Marshall / 83 Comments

shot by kid

I’m proposing a new gun control law that would be named after Jamie Gilt, who this week was accidentally shot in the back by her 4-year-old son, who was seated in the back seat of her truck at the time. The child had picked up a .45 handgun that she had left on the floor of the vehicle. “Jamie’s Law” would ban gun ownership for life if an adult leaves a firearm, loaded, within the reach of a child below a certain age. Personally, I’d be fine if the cut-off was 18, but just to keep the law as close to Jamie’s situation as possible, let’s say 10 or under. Would that be unreasonable?

We could make the law really specific to Jamie, who is an idiot, by banning gun ownership by anyone who leaves guns lying around for kids to play with AND maintains a Facebook page called “Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense,“…well, with their name, not Jamie’s. Yes, Jamie—did I mention that she is an idiot?—did this while promoting responsible gun ownership. I wonder what she would consider irresponsible gun ownership. Maybe giving a child a loaded gun to suck on, instead of a pacifier.

I’m not too fond of the million or so anti-gun types who went on the page to insult and berate Jamie, who is in the hospital. (I see that the page has been taken down since last night.) I’m sure she feels bad enough already, in part because she was shot and also because she will be the face of foolish gun owners for the foreseeable future. What she should feel is lucky. The only difference between Jamie and Veronica Jean Rutledge, shot dead in a Walmart by her two-year-old in 2014, is moral luck. Actually, what Gilt did was more reckless that the conduct that killed Rutledge: Gilt was driving, and Rutledge at least had her gun in her purse, not in plain view. Both Rutledge and Gilt were lucky their children weren’t killed.

What do you think about Jamie’s Law?

Maybe gun owners who do this should be banned from having custody of children, too.

(Of course, it goes without saying that they would be presumed innocent until proven Gilty….)*

_______________________

*I’m sorry, I really am, but there’s a place in Hell for people who pass up set-ups like this.

Ethics Jump Ball: What Is An Ethical Reaction To This Story?

/ Jack Marshall / 104 Comments

Pippa-Bacca

From the BBC (2008):

An Italian woman artist who was hitch-hiking to the Middle East dressed as a bride to promote world peace has been found murdered in Turkey.

The naked body of Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, 33, known as Pippa Bacca, was found in bushes near the northern city of Gebze on Friday.

She had said she wanted to show that she could put her trust in the kindness of local people.

Turkish police say they have detained a man in connection with the killing.

Reports say the man led the police to the body.

I think I’ll add my reactions to the comments.

Fragments can be found in the tags.

You go first.

__________________

Pointer: Red Flag

Ethics Quiz: The “420” Tattoo And GoFundMe Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Tattoo 420

Tabitha West, of Fulton, New York, created a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for a worthy cause: paying for her to get a giant woman  “420” tattoo removed from her forehead. “420” apparently means “I’m a pot head.” Some madman tied her down and defaced her. Wait, no scratch that. She paid to have someone but the big, ugly, stupid tattoo there. Now she finds that having a tattoo on her face that proclaims her love of illegal drug use is an impediment to employment. Huh. Boy, knock me over with a feather: who could have foreseen that?

So, broke and desperate, Tabitha—did I mention that she is an imbecile? Did I need to?—is begging for kind and generous people to undo what she did.

Her message on the GoFundMe page, seeking a goal of  $800, reads:

“I am wanti,g $ to get that tattoo off my for head I want to have a better start out in life and have a second chance at life please help me I was young n dumb when I got that I’m older one looking for a job can’t get out and people call me a druggie every day of my life and being called 420 is not nice and I almost killed my self over it. … can’t stand to look at my face anymore. .save a life save me..invest in me and I will show you I can be better with my life. ..thank you.”

We can all see from that eloquent appeal that Tabitha is a dummy no longer, and thus a superb investment.

Surprisngly, some critics demur. Shawn Morse, for example, wrote in response to the appeal:

“It’s people like you that keep my (sick) girl from getting help. My daughter has three brain tumors, cerebral palsy, neurofibromatosis, an optic glioma, & a feeding tube. My daughter’s GoFundMe keeps getting passed over for things like this. There are too many people begging for money for their bad decisions in their life.”

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the day is…

Is it unethical for Tabitha to seek help on GoFundMe, and for donors to give her money?

Continue reading →