The web is abuzz over this viral video, in which a young woman, aided by a videocam-wielding minion, goes to excessive lengths to provoke a young man of significant size:
The question being debated: Is it ever ethical for a man to strike a woman? Continue reading
On Nov. 5, we’ll find out if W.C. Fields’ low opinion of Philadelphia was justified…
An unethical and incompetent judge in Philadelphia doesn’t think so, thus making a powerful argument against electing judges, being a prostitute, and living in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia Municipal Court judge Teresa Carr Deni ruled that the 2007 rape of a prostitute at gunpoint was merely “theft of services.”The woman had agreed to meet a man have sex with him for the bargain fee of $150. He asked her if his friend could join in the fun for an additional $100, and she agreed. When these two sterling citizens arrived for the appointment, however, they held her at gunpoint and forced her to have sex with them free of charge.
If this isn’t rape when a prostitute is involved—forced, unconsented intercourse, through the threat of deadly force—then any prostitute can be raped at will, with the worst charge being “theft.” Selling sex doesn’t convert sexual battery into nothing, a non-crime, once consent for that sale is withdrawn. If you know someone is preparing to sell blood to a blood bank, and you attack him, subdue him, and drain his blood to sell yourself, is this merely theft, or a crime of violence? If he was going to be an organ donor, and you rip out his kidney, is that just theft? There is no route through law or reason that allows us to ignore the fact that a woman was forced to have sex with two men without her consent. Judge Deni clearly has a monstrous bias against prostitutes, and thus believes that they shouldn’t receive equal protection under the law. When criticized, her rationalization was that prosecuting the men for rape “minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped.” Continue reading
“All right! We can lie without simply following the rule “It is permissible to lie“ and instead, follow a rule that pertains only to specific circumstances, like “It is permissible to lie when doing so will save a life, and thus such a rule can be made a universal law without contradiction, don’t you see? No?”
From Russia comes this story:
“A “passionate argument” about 18th-century Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, renowned for his treatises on ethics, “deteriorated into a fistfight” between two men waiting in line for beer during an outdoor City Day event in the southern Russian metropolis of Rostov-on-Don, police said Monday. The argument ended when one of the debaters pulled out an air gun and shot the other in the head, local police said in a statement. The shooter then fled the scene but was later detained, police said. The other man’s wound was not critical, but he was hospitalized, the statement said…”
I am fairly certain that Kant would have said that shooting someone in the head with an air gun to settle a debate over ethics violates his Rule of Universality, which has the seldom-cited codicil, “Don’t shoot people in the head, unless you want to live in a world where everyone gets shot in the head.” It is a perfect example of losing an argument by winning an argument.
And you thought the ethics debates got heated on Ethics Alarms!
________________
Pointer: Volokh Conspiracy
“You know…morons.”— The Waco Kid, “Blazing Saddles.”
This really does explain a lot…
The Waco Kid’s (Gene Wilder) sage description of “the common clay” to Sheriff Bart (Cleavon Little) when the latter was devastated by his treatment at the hands of the good (but racist) citizens of Rock Ridge often comes to mind in times like this, when I see a large portion of the public, pundits and the media taking a position that is not merely ethically indefensible, but suggestive of brain death.
Such a position is the rush to rally around Emilio Chavez III, an understandably enraged father who caught a naked peeping Tom masturbating outside his teenaged daughters’ bedroom window. From media reports:
“Police said Emilio Chavez III, his brother and a family friend beat the alleged peeper, Dylan Maho, 29, so badly that he was hospitalized, a local television station reported. The district attorney wants to charge Mr. Chavez with aggravated battery, a third-degree felony that could land him in jail for three years…Mr. Maho is in stable condition at the hospital and will be charged with voyeurism, a fourth-degree felony that only brings between one and two years of jail time.”
The headlines in the majority of national news sources—all what the mainstream media would call “the conservative media”— that have covered this story, for this is the feature of the incident that they deem makes it “national news,” is the “Believe It or Not!” angle that so backward are the priorities of the U.S. justice system that the father will face harsher punishment for his conduct than the sick pervert will for his! Here’s passage and quote included in most of the reports:
“Community members voiced their outrage and sympathy for their neighbor’s plight. ‘There’s a naked man outside his daughter’s window,” Mr. Chavez’s neighbor Bill Morgang told the station. “I think he was well within his rights chasing him down and beating him.”’
The overwhelming majority of the online comments to these news reports agree with Morgang.
From the Washington Times: Continue reading
Jim Carrey, not fooling as much as we thought…
There are no rule, laws, or principles of ethics that requires that an actor who usually portrays an ass actually has to be an ass, but if there were, Jim Carrey would be in complete compliance with them.
Jim Carrey announced via Twitter that he now objects to “Kick-Ass 2,” the soon-to-be-released movie he stars in, citing as his reason the December, 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, which he apparently thinks will be made worse by the movie, or would have been caused by it if the film had come out earlier, or, well, something. “I did Kick-Ass a month [before] Sandy Hook and now in all good conscience I cannot support that level of violence,” Carrey tweeted. “I meant to say my apologies to others [involved] with the film. I am not ashamed of it but recent events have caused a change in my heart.” Continue reading
Danny the Fridge stalks his prey…
[UPDATE: This story was, it now turns up, just another hoax. Fred Phelps doesn’t even have a son. I hate web hoaxes, whether I’m sucked in by them or not. But I’m cutting this one a little dispensation, because I needed a good laugh, and this sure provided it. ]
I am awash in shame. Since early this morning I have been bursting into uncontrollable laughter at another human being’s pain, as he was subjected to an experience of unimaginable existential and surreal horror. It is schadenfreude beyond question, not unethical in itself—feelings are not unethical—but taking joy in the misfortune of others is not a sound foundation for ethical conduct.
I’m not going to rationalize this: I should feel sympathy for the victim. Nonetheless, and even though he was attacked without provocation, and for exercising his First Amendment rights, there are some unusual mitigating circumstances:
That last part was the one that got me. There, see, I’m laughing again.
We have been puzzling about what to do about the Westboro Baptist Church and its disgusting ritual of shouting anti-gay epithets at the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers, and I admit that having a 500 pound naked fat man sit on him never occurred to me. I can’t condone it; it is assault and battery, and both a crime and a tort. Nor is it ever ethical, if you are a 500 pound fat man, to chase someone down a street. Indeed, it is arguably not even ethical to be a 500 pound naked fat man, at least in public. It is certainly wrong for any of us to sanction such behavior by cheering it on, or doing anything to encourage other naked obese people to ambush, sit on and pursue members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Just wrong.
And now I’m laughing again.
I’m so ashamed.
___________________________________
Pointer: Fark
Facts andGraphic: The Daily Mail
“Oh, man up! What are you afraid of? “
28-year-old Ivan Brannan Jr. has filed battery charges against his former girlfriend, perpetually troubled ex-tennis prodigy Jennifer Capriati, who is now 36. He claims she has been stalking him, and that she recently punched him several times in the chest.
What is notable, though not surprising, is how many commenters on sites covering the news item have reacted by pronouncing Capriati’s alleged victim a wimp and a weenie. “He should turn in his man card,” sniffed one.
Wrong.
Female on male spousal and companion abuse is neither rare nor harmless, but it is one of the most unreported crimes. That sexist, ignorant attitude is why. Society’s justified concern for violence against women leaves men with the presumed physical superiority and monopoly on aggression. As a result, shame, fear of ridicule and self-doubt cause many, and probably most abused men to tolerate without reporting levels of physical punishment that would be regarded as serious and criminal if the genders were reversed. The unsympathetic reaction of Brannan’s crtitics leaves him with the bad choice of accepting the violence and the worse one of escalating it and fighting back.
We don’t know Capriati’s side of the story yet, but if she did punch Brannan, she is capable of doing some real damage. Strength and muscularity were her trademarks on the tennis court. Whatever the physical abilities involved, however, female on male violence should be treated exactly like the reverse, and if his complaint is valid, Brannan deserves thanks and credit for bringing this unfair double standard into the spotlight. He does not deserve to be insulted.
____________________________
Source: CNN
Graphic: Girls With Muscle
“Say hello to my little friend! And while we’re on the topic of guns, don’t you think it’s time to be sensible about gun control?”
In a move stunningly unconscious to outrageous hypocrisy, the group “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” have posted a video on on its website and Youtube (of course), featuring an impressive array of solemn Hollywood celebrities chiding Americans for not doing something about guns “yesterday” and to “demand a plan” to end gun violence. The problem? Many of these same celebrities owe their presence on the video to Hollywood’s obsession with gun violence, without which they would be just anonymous pretty faces. They owe their mansions and private planes to that gun violence too, which they have happily, willfully and lucratively acted out in scores of violent films and television shows. How can they presume, given how they make their living, to lecture anyone on the topic of guns?
I have some theories. Many of them are dumb as bricks. Most of them are automatic co-signers of the manifesto for any cause branded as liberal, the Hollywood religion,and don’t bother to think about whether it is consistent with their life choices or not. Probably all of them, working every day in one of the most ethics-free, cut-throat, dishonest and hypocritical sub-cultures that has ever existed in the United States are completely numb to the concept of hypocrisy, as apparently are the mayors, who work in the culture of politics, which is only somewhat better. Continue reading
Dillinger. Such a pleasant looking fellow!
This is the first of two informative Comments of the Day regarding this post. 49erDweet is correct, of course: the decision to honor Tiburcio Vasquez is a disgrace, and the comment shows that it is even more outrageous and irresponsible than I thought. I have read some of the claims on the web that Vasquez was “framed,” and that he didn’t commit the crimes attributed to him. None of them offer any proof other than the fact that mainstream scholars and historians, which naturally are biased against Mexicans, chronicled his activities, and none explain this mystery: if Vasquez didn’t commit all those crimes, what the heck did he do that was so remarkable? The only reason he is famous is because of his crimes. If he really was innocent, then he was a non-entity.
Here is 49erDweet’s Comment of the Day on the post, “What’s Next for the Alisal Union School District…John Dillinger High School?”:
“The Alisal school district’s area is directly adjacent to mine but in the same community, so I’m a tiny bit familiar with the issue. I’ve disbelievingly read most of the few published responses of a couple of their board members and their superintendent. For some reason the other board members haven’t been available.
From what I’ve read it’s apparent the individuals involved, all of whom have Hispanic surnames, believe the available published history concerning California is biased and untrue, and Vasquez should be considered a popular hero in the same vein as was Robin Hood. For the crimes he committed against his own people, which they believe were minor, they readily forgive him. And to their way of thinking he’s a folk hero who should be idolized.
“I believe this is sad, bad community leadership, obviously a major ethics fail, and is more than passingly ironic because the area they represent is one of the major Mexican prison gang battlefields currently in crisis in California. They are preparing to hold up a killer, thief, robber and rapist as a person their future students should emulate. Which, for a gang area, should build up the prison population and a much shorter than normal life expectancy.
“My heart breaks for the students who will be negatively impacted by this dreadful decision.”
OK, so he was hanged for murder. Nobody’s perfect.
According to the University of Southern California historical archives, Tiburcio Vasquez (1835- 1875) was California’s second most notorious bandit. At the age of 14 he stabbed a constable, then embarked on a life of crime. He became the leader of his own gang, which ranged up and down central and southern California, robbing and killing. Vasquez was convicted of horse-stealing and sentenced to San Quentin prison in 1857, escaped, stole more horses, and was finally released in 1863, after playing a role in four prison breaks that resulted in the deaths of twenty inmates. For the next ten years he and his gang committed a string of burglaries, robberies and murders in the San Benito County area, finally ending with his capture in 1874. Convicted of two murders of the six attributed to him, Vadquez was sentenced to death, and executed by hanging the next year. Shortly before the noose was placed around his neck, Vasquez dictated an explanation for his actions:
“A spirit of hatred and revenge took possession of me. I had numerous fights in defense of what I believed to be my rights and those of my countrymen. I believed we were unjustly deprived of the social rights that belonged to us.”
I know what you must be thinking: “What a perfect historical figure for the Mexican-American community to honor by naming an elementary school him!” Continue reading
Ethics Alarms 