Welcome to the first, and possibly last, Jack Marshall Day here at Windypundit.
For those who don’t know, Jack Marshall is a “professional ethicist” (he teaches CLE courses to lawyers) who opines on various topic at Ethics Alarms. I started following him years ago because he discussed a lot of interesting topics, and even though I disagreed with him on a number of important issues, he seemed like a serious and worthwhile sparring partner. I spent a lot of time commenting on his blog.
But on this very day two years ago Jack posted a piece that eventually caused me to rethink everything I believed about him. In many ways, it was just another normal-seeming round-up column. One of the items was a response to a proposal to raise the age limit for gun purchases, and at one point in that item Jack digressed into a discussion over the appropriate age for drafting soldiers. Later, in response to a comment on that digression, Jack left a reply which changed everything:
If four year olds were deemed necessary to win a war, then the government needs the power to conscript four year olds,
This was mind blowing. Jack Marshall, professional ethicist, approved of child slave soldiers. It was an event of what Jack likes to call “signature significance.” Child soldiers are a monstrous evil, condemned by the whole civilized world. Except Jack Marshall. This strongly suggested to me that maybe Jack the ethicist…isn’t very good at ethics.
I’d like to say this was a moment of clarity for me, but the truth is, it took me a while to absorb the truth, which eventually force me to cast my philosophical relationship with Jack into a new light. I had been trying to have earnest discussions about ethical issues in Presidential politics, journalism, and the war on drugs with a guy who thinks it’s okay to enslave children to fight in wars. I felt cheated. I felt stupid. I had been taking Jack’s opinions on ethical issues far too seriously. This was like getting into an involved culinary argument over the relative merits of American Wagyu vs. traditional Kobe beef, only to discover that your debating opponent was a cannibal. Clearly, sparring with Jack had been a colossal waste of my time.
I eventually found an appropriate moment to ask Jack about his awful comment. He made an attempt to defend it as an absurd exaggeration — and obviously he doesn’t mean literal 4-year-olds — but in both the original post and his later responses, he clearly defends the idea of drafting children to fight wars:
18 years olds are adults, and no, I have no problem with mandatory military service for men and women as a condition of citizenship. There’s no magic in ages, or where the line is drawn. In a national emergency would drafting physically mature sub-18 teens be justifiable? Sure….if it were a matter of national survival. That’s ethics conflict territory: one ethical principle has to be given higher priority over another.
Jack has changed his justification from “necessary to win a war” to “national survival,” which I suppose is an improvement. But when a country has fallen so far that its leaders are enslaving children as soldiers, there’s nothing left worth keeping. It doesn’t deserve to survive. The people deserve to survive, and if the enemy is at the gates and intends extermination, they may have to arm their children. But no one has the right to force someone else’s child to fight a war. It is my considered opinion that if government agents try to steal your children to fight in a war, the correct ethical response is to shoot them in the fucking head! Shoot as many of them as you can, as fast as you can, for as long as you can.
(It’s amusing — or maybe horrifying, it’s hard to tell anymore — that Jack limits his willingness to draft children to those who are “physically mature.” As if the main problem with drafting 4-year-olds is that they aren’t strong enough to hump a full kit around the battlefield.)
In retrospect, Jack’s blog has been going downhill ever since the start of the Trump era. He seems to recognize that Trump is a huge jerk, but that doesn’t stop him from attacking nearly everyone who criticizes Trump. Granted, there certainly are idiots who attack Trump for dumb reasons. Jack mocks them for having “Trump derangement syndrome,” and he’s not totally wrong. But he slings that epithet far too widely, and he’s become just as deranged in his defense of Trump as the worst of those he mocks.
Consider one example from back in October, when Trump tried to award the contract for hosting an international world leadership summit to the Trump National Doral Miami resort. This is Ethics 101 territory. Anyone who has ever accepted a position at a government agency, and almost anyone who’s taken a job at a large corporation, has sat through an ethics training session that spelled out in no uncertain terms the need to avoid a conflict of interest in awarding contracts. Probably hundreds of millions of people have been trained that steering contracts to serve your personal interests is unethical. People are routinely fired or even prosecuted for breaking that rule.
Jack, on the other hand, defends Trump:
Trump shouldn’t have backed down from holding the Group of 7 Summit at the Trump luxery golf club in Miami. Apparently he did so because Republican members of Congress complained about it, and they complained about it because they knew it would spark more bogus accusations of Emoluments Clause violations […]
That Jack sees nothing wrong with Trump dealing himself some taxpayer money is not the craziest part of that post.
This is:
Any and every negotiations specialist will tell you that holding a meeting of adversaries in your own territory is a massive advantage. That is why such meetings are often held in Switzerland, or other neutral sites. Holding the Summit at a Trump property makes the President stronger at the meeting, and that benefits the country.
It would have been nice—responsible, educational, fair, honest—if the news media explained this basic principle to the public, but it doesn’t want to justify the President’s decisions or find benign reasons for them.
The idea that this was some kind of negotiating tactic is batshit lunacy, as is attacking the news media for not explaining a “basic principle” that Jack just pulled out of his ass. Oh, I’m sure there’s some tactical advantage to negotiating on your home turf, but we’re talking about the President of the United States here. His home turf is the friggin’ White House, one of the most recognizable symbols of power in the world, located in Washington, D.C., the seat of government for the most powerful nation that ever existed. That’s a hell of a lot more impressive than a fucking golf resort that gets mediocre reviews on Yelp.
This wasn’t the first time Jack made up special rules for Trump. Shortly after the inauguration, he tried to argue that it’s unethical to disrespect the winner of the Presidential election:
[…] Americans have always realized that the slate is cleared when someone becomes President, and that the individual inherits the office and the legitimacy of that office as it has been built and maintained by it previous occupants. He […] becomes the symbol of the nation, the government and its people, a unique amalgam of prime minister, king and flag in human and civilian form.
This is an illustration of Jack’s authoritarian streak, of his weird devotion to those in power. This is even clearer in a followup post in which he invokes an argument from The Caine Mutiny to justify his exaltation of Trump. This takes place after the Naval officers have been acquitted in court for their actions in taking over Captain Queeg’s command. Their lawyer, Greenwald, is taking them to task.
Ensign Keith: Queeg endangered the lives of the men.
Greenwald: He didn’t endanger any lives.You did. A fine bunch of officers.
Lt. Paynter: You said yourself he cracked.
Greenwald: I’m glad you brought that up, Mr. Paynter, because that’s a very pretty point. I left out one detail in court. It wouldn’t have helped our case. Tell me, Steve, after the yellow-stain business, Queeg came to you for help, and you turned him down, didn’t you.
Lt. Maryk: Yes, we did.
Greenwald: You didn’t approve of his conduct as an officer. He wasn’t worthy of your loyalty. So you turned on him. You ragged on him, you made up songs about him. If you’d given Queeg the loyalty he needed, do you think all this would have come up in the typhoon? You’re an honest man, Steve, I’m asking you. You think it would have been necessary to take over?
Maryk: It probably wouldn’t have been necessary.
Keith: If that’s true, we were guilty.
Greenwald: Ahhh, You’re learning, Willie! You don’t work with the captain because of how he parts his hair…you work with him because he’s got the job, or you’re no good.
Jack tries to apply that to Trump’s critics:
Either the Presidency will make Donald Trump a better man, or Trump will permanently harm the Presidency and weaken it, thus making the office less of an inspiration and source of strength for future occupants. […] It is absolutely in the nation’s best interests to seek the first result. That requires focusing on the office and its strengths, and uniting as a nation behind that office. The relentless, unprecedented assault on Trump since his election by Democrats and the news media may have already done irreparable damage.
This is wrong on so many levels.
First of all, Jack is too much of an authoritarian to recognize that the duty that serving members of the military owe to their commanding officers in a time of war is in no way relevant to the question of how citizens of a free country should treat their elected representatives. The officers of the Caine had joined the military and swore an oath to obey their commanding officers. Trump, on the other hand, is just a guy we elected. We don’t work for him, he works for us. We don’t owe him loyalty, he has to earn it. And if we don’t like him, we get to kick his ass around the schoolyard whenever we want. “Fuck the President” is a perfectly acceptable sentiment.
Second, as Greenwald argues and the officers agree, perhaps Captain Queeg would not have mishandled things so badly during the typhoon if his officers had given him more support. That certainly makes his officers complicit in the problems on board the Caine. But it does not in any way let Queeg off the hook for his own failures as a leader, including his failure to preserve cohesion among his officers. Similarly, Trump is responsible for his own failings, and deserves to pay the price of receiving criticism.
Third, the arguments made by Greenwald in the film and by Jack in his blog both make the implicit assumption that everybody is working toward the same goal. That’s accurate in the film, since everyone involved is at war with the same enemy, and for all Queeg’s problems, no one thinks he’s a Japanese agent. But what if he was? What if Queeg had announced his intent to seek out U.S. supply convoys and sink them? That’s literally treason, and officers would have been idiots to say, “Well, he hasn’t actually sunk any American ships yet, so we need to support him!”
I’m not saying Trump has done anything treasonous, but we’re not talking about overthrowing him by force. This all started because Jack overreacted to comedienne John Oliver’s criticisms of Trump. This is about the ethics of Trump’s opponents criticizing him and refusing to help him accomplish his agenda, because they sincerely believe his agenda would be bad for the country. Again, Jack is ignoring a basic Ethics 101 concept: If you see that something evil is about to happen, and you are in a position to stop it, then you have an obligation to try to stop it. It’s nuts to argue that Trump’s opponents instead have an obligation to give him a running start at screwing things up.
Fourth, some of the people Jack is criticizing will be harmed by Trump’s policies because they don’t support him. Me, for example. If I wanted to buy a new car or air conditioner or any other product made outside the U.S.A., Trump had announced his intention to oppose me. Because of the policies he intended to enact (and has in fact enacted by now), armed government agents will either prevent those products from entering the U.S. or else force me to pay a steep tax. Either way, I lose. In the absence of a prior obligation to Trump — analogous to the Caine officers’ obligation to the their commanding officer — by what ethical principle could I possibly be obliged to help him achieve a goal that is directly harmful to me?
I think I’ve gone on long enough. You may, in fact, wonder why I’ve gone on at all. If I think Jack is such a waste of time, why do I bother to write about him? You’d think after reading his posts claiming that it’s a myth that wars kill innocent civilians or that black people were racists for not voting for Mitt Romney or that it’s unethical to give your cat catnip, I’d have learned my lesson and stopped reading his blog.
The truth is, I don’t entirely understand it myself. It’s like picking at a scab: It hurts, and you know you should stop, but somehow you just can’t.
I can still remember when Jack’s blog was a pretty good place. We’ve always had disagreements, but that didn’t stop his blog from being an intelligent forum for discussions of ethics. And he still raises some interesting issues and calls out some genuinely bad and good ethics in current events. It’s just not worth it any more when the good bits are surrounded by a pro-Trump authoritarian shit show.
It doesn’t help that he is increasingly intolerant of dissent. When he claims to be “objectively” correct and denounces those who disagree as “morons,” it no longer feels like he’s still inviting genuine discussion. He has kicked out commenters that disagreed with him, ostensibly for being rude, while allowing some of his more asinine supporters to continue being jerks in the comments. And when some of us take the hint and stop contributing, Jack calls us cowards. Fuck that shit.
For some time now, Ethics Alarms has mostly been a hate-read. I’d go there when I wanted to find some crazy shit that I could get righteously angry about. (That used to be a good way to work up a blog post). Lately, however, I’m trying to preserve my sanity by keeping away from Ethics Alarms. I’ve stopped commenting on the blog, unsubscribed from the posts in Feedly, and stopped following Jack on Twitter, all to avoid the temptation to read his blog.
It’s not really working. I just can’t quit. I still give in and take a peek to see what he’s up to, or to check his reaction to a news story. (Did he think Shakira and JLo brought too much of the sexy to the Superbowl halftime show? Of course he did.) But I’m still trying to back away, and my latest plan is to try to limit myself to writing about him once a year, on this, the anniversary of his worst ethics opinion ever.
I’m writing about my plans here as a way of burning that bridge, of making a public declaration that will be embarrassing to go back on. It won’t be easy, though, and it doesn’t help that I’m in a loose-knit private Twitter conversation with several of his former commenters. We occasionally post screen shots when he says something really outrageous. It’s fun, but it’s probably bad for our mental health. And like me, they can’t explain this obsession either.
And truthfully, for some crazy reason, I still kind of like Jack. If he ever got better, and returned the blog to to something decent and interesting, I’d be tempted to return to commenting there if I was still welcome after. But it’s a sad place for now, and it’s probably for the best if I can’t go back.
It seems to me your signature significance moment is somewhat misplaced. I think Jack’s point about the four year olds, is that in an emergency of epic proportions, if we have to put the four year olds in the war to try to win we must.This would, I imagine, only happen in an absolute emergency. Think of the tunnel scenes in the Lord of the Rings. If the orcs had won, those children were getting slaughtered anyway- if that’s the case- you might as well give them a sword and try to let them take some more of the bad guys with them.
I think you’re problem is that you don’t give the writer of that comment (Jack) the benefit of the doubt. What Jack said was “if four year olds were necessary to win a war, then the government needs the power to conscript them.” What, I think, he obviously meant was “If four year olds were necessary to win a war *for the very survival of the country* then the government would need the power to conscript them.”
I don’t think any reasonable person could take the comment to mean precisely what Jack said. When you write prolifically sometimes you goof like that. It seems to me we’re all better off if we ignore the goof, and actually respond to what, I think, prolific writers clearly meant.
Not saying one can’t reasonably criticize Jack- just think you’ve missed his actual point on this one- so, at a minimum, your “Jack Marshall Day”, probably needs to be a different day of the calendar year.
Hey Jeffrey, your comment was trapped in my spam filter for some reason. Thanks for commenting.
I think I see what you’re saying about “those children were getting slaughtered anyway- if that’s the case- you might as well give them a sword,” and in fact I said something similar myself in this post: “if the enemy is at the gates and intends extermination, they may have to arm their children.” Desperate times call for desperate measures.
But that’s not what Jack is defending. Jack is not proposing to arm the children in self-defense. Jack is defending conscription of children, which can only mean forcing someone else’s children to fight in a war against their will.
In the paragraph where he advocates conscripting children, he also says, “Ethics rules are suspended in war: its a survival situation. I registered. I looked at it as a duty of citizenship, and like my peers, I had no basis on which to decide what proper Southeast Asia policy should be.” That’s a terrible way to frame the issue. The ethical question is not whether Jack gets to decide the country’s Southeast Asia policy, it’s whether he gets to decide what to do with his own life. My answer is “Of course he does.” No one has a right to take that away from Jack or anyone else.
(In case you’re wondering, while I have many reasons to despise Donald Trump, dodging the draft is not one of them. He had a right to refuse to serve. And others have a right to judge him for refusing. But no one had the right to force him.)
When I confronted Jack later, he reiterated his support for forcing other people’s teenage children to fight in wars: “I have no problem with mandatory military service […] There’s no magic in ages, or where the line is drawn. In a national emergency would drafting physically mature sub-18 teens be justifiable? Sure.”
I didn’t mention it in my original post, but in his later response he also says “Frying two cities of civilians with atomic bombs is, I’m sure you will agree, more repugnant than sending in troops of four-year olds. But it had to be done.” That’s Jack’s own rationalization #22: “There are worse things.”
In short, I don’t think Jack goofed. To judge by his later response, neither does he. I think he basically meant what he said. He’s said a few other awful things, but this one really got my attention, which is why I’m sticking with it for the day.
Conscripting four-year-olds for the survival of a *country* would not be ethical, but it may be ethical if it were necessary for the survival of the people within that country. Jack is a nationalist, and a proud one, so I am pretty sure he meant the former.
Chris wrote, “Conscripting four-year-olds for the survival of a *country* would not be ethical, but it may be ethical if it were necessary for the survival of the people within that country.”
That is NOT what Marshall wrote, he clearly stated that “Ethics rules are suspended in war: its a survival situation.” he did not say or imply that it was ethical to draft children.
You, like Windypundit, are misrepresenting Marshall.
“That is NOT what Marshall wrote, he clearly stated that ‘Ethics rules are suspended in war: its a survival situation.’ he did not say or imply that it was ethical to draft children.”
This seems like a distinction without a difference. If Jack says ethics rules are suspended in fighting a war for survival, then nothing done to fight the war can be unethical, including conscripting children. (Which was the subject of the prior sentence.) And if conscripting children is not unethical, what other category is available except “ethical”?
If Jack is arguing that things done in a war for survival are somehow “outside” of ethics — neither ethical nor unethical — that’s just dodging the question.
Mark Draughn wrote, “This seems like a distinction without a difference. If Jack says ethics rules are suspended in fighting a war for survival, then nothing done to fight the war can be unethical, including conscripting children. (Which was the subject of the prior sentence.) And if conscripting children is not unethical, what other category is available except “ethical”?”
You’re spinning it and you know it.
The misrepresentations presented here are unethical. I expected this kind of thing from Chris but not from you.
For an ethicist, Jack certainly seems to think that a lot of circumstances demand that ethical rules be suspended. Wars, abusive marriages, Donald Trump’s entire presidency…all situations where normal ethical rules just don’t apply!
Mark’s interpretation of Jack’s comments is perfectly reasonable, as is mine.
As is usual with you, you don’t address what’s written and attack someone with nonsense.
Incredibly well-written takedown of a guy who has taken up too much of our time. Laughing at him was one of best online decisions I’ve made. His choice to not ban Alizia, an open white nationalist who uses his blog to recruit, or Steve-O, a misogynistic psychopath, while banning me for justified laughter after he said there was no reason not to trust the Trump administration to investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, reveals a lot about him. But you covered pretty much everything else.
Thanks Chris. Oh, there’s a ton of stuff I left out, but I didn’t want this to be all-the-ways-I-think-Jack-is-wrong. I just wanted to hit on a few of the items that convinced me I need to stop wasting my time at his blog.
By the way, since you mentioned Jacks commenters, here’s one of my favorite exchanges, where Zoltar complains that social justice warriors are destroying America, and Steve-O responds that he’d like to solve the problem with literal death squads: https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/09/04/dcac-ethics/#comment-466451
Zoltar is beyond dumb. I had trouble engaging with him without being cruel. So I just stopped.
Interesting that you think Zoltar is “beyond dumb” which is actually an improper use of the word dumb but I think we get your point even though it was Zoltar in the comment that Windypundit referenced above that accurately stated and predicted that
“Social justice warriors are bring[ing] down the rule of law”
and also predicted that
“This is going to get much worse.”
EA Survivor, I get that you might disagree with Zoltar but “beyond dumb” doesn’t quite ring true in fact it appears to be a bigoted statement..
Maybe I should be referring to Mark Draughn instead of Windypundit. I’ll correct that in future comments.
…What?
As is usual with you, you can’t understand that which is self-evident.
There should be a support group for former commenters on Jack’s blog!
I know, right? But I think dedicating a support group to him is the wrong approach when the problem is that we’re paying too much attention to him! It’s such a conundrum.
I see that he’s responded to this post (just a little) on his blog. I was going to make responding to his response an exception to the once-per-year rule, but now I think I’d like to try to hold out for another year. We’ll see how it goes…
Are all my comments now being held for moderation?
Not as far as I can tell. Maybe something weird was going on…
There appears to be some very selective moderation of some of my comments. I just posted three comments and it appears that two of the three were kicked into moderation for some reason. I’ve checked the comments multiple times and there’s nothing wrong with them.
Why are you selectively moderating my comments?
I’ve never seen a blog site that has so many comment moderation problems. I have comments stuck in moderation and you are not doing anything about it. There is no justification for the comments to be in moderation in the first place and yet here we are.
Fix your errors in moderation or I’ll considered it intentional censorship.
Your choice.
Apparently some of your comments were flagged as spam, which I don’t understand. I dug through the spam folder and de-spammed all the ones I could find. I’m not sure why it did that. I’ll have to look into it when I get a chance.
I noticed that you made several attempt to post some of the comments. I’ve deleted earlier versions of ones that appeared to be duplicates so you don’t look unhinged.
You solved the problem.
Thank you.
I understand that participating on a blog with actual moderation must be tough for you.
I remember when I (stupidly, shamefully) left a comment on Ethics Alarms months after being banned. Many of the commenters insisted I must have done some kind of sophisticated hacking to get past Jack’s system…when in reality, I posted the comment with the same username and email I had always used in the past. Jack just doesn’t have any kind of moderation protocols in place. He seems very bad at the Internet in general, often misrepresenting basic issues related to how it works.
I mean, I don’t remember him being “accusing moderators of censorship like a Star Wars fan banned from a message board for bashing the Reylo ship” bad, but still.
Just FYI, I don’t actually do much in the way of moderation. Steve’s comments got marked as spam because some of my comment settings were basically fighting each other. I made some changes, and I hope it will stop doing that.
Chris wrote, “I understand that participating on a blog with actual moderation must be tough for you.”
This is the kind of nonsense that constitutes an argument for Chris.
Chris wrote, “I remember when I (stupidly, shamefully) left a comment on Ethics Alarms months after being banned. Many of the commenters insisted I must have done some kind of sophisticated hacking to get past Jack’s system…when in reality, I posted the comment with the same username and email I had always used in the past. Jack just doesn’t have any kind of moderation protocols in place. He seems very bad at the Internet in general, often misrepresenting basic issues related to how it works.”
Interesting concept; you violate the rules on Ethics Alarms and Jack Marshall is at fault. You have no logic.
“Interesting concept; you violate the rules on Ethics Alarms and Jack Marshall is at fault.”
You are illiterate. I clearly took responsibility for my decision in the very portion you quoted.
CHRISTOPHER J SOUZA wrote, “You are illiterate. I clearly took responsibility for my decision in the very portion you quoted.”
Wow Chris, take a pill and calm down you’re becoming unhinged as usual. You also wrote this in the same comment…
That Mr. Souza was deflecting blame back on Jack and denying that fact doesn’t change the fact. Same old Chris, doesn’t know when to keep your “mouth” shut and just appear foolish.
Here’s a quote that you should learn and apply to your virtual life, “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”
P.S. You didn’t have to post with your full name, I knew long ago who you were.
Mark Draughn smeared Jack Marshall for stating this
“If four year olds were deemed necessary to win a war, then the government needs the power to conscript four year olds,”
What Draughn doesn’t tell you is that he intentionally cherry picked the statement and left out a key point which was after the comma at the end of that statement where Marshall also finished the sentence and wrote…
“Ethics rules are suspended in war: its a survival situation.”
So the entire statement including the previous sentence which refers back to the discussion which was about linking voting age and military service…
“Wars can’t be waged by poll or vote; it’s a basic principle. If four year olds were deemed necessary to win a war, then the government needs the power to conscript four year olds, Ethics rules are suspended in war: its a survival situation.”
Marshall was making a point that blew over Draughn’s head at the speed of light. Also, Marshall is NOT saying it is ethical to draft 4 year olds, your claim is unethical spin.
Draughn’s presents the cherry picked statement as if that was all Marshall wrote, this is not only unethical it’s immoral because Windypundit is using this cherry picked out of context statement to besmirch Marshall’s character.
It looks like Windypundit was searching for a reason, any reason, to besmirch Marshall and bow out of conversations on Ethics Alarms when all he had to do was gracefully bow out. Draughn was shown respect at Ethics Alarms by Marshall and others and this is the garbage that he gets in return. Draughn’s actions show us just how petty Draughn can be.
I realize you posted similar arguments several times because my spam protection was swallowing them up for some reason, and I think I’ve addressed the basic issue of Jack’s statement above. You say Jack is not condoning child soldiers, he’s just saying the government may need child soldiers, and that’s okay because ethics rules are suspended in war. You see a difference there, and I don’t. I don’t think we’ll see eye-to-eye on this.
I picked key sentences out of Jack’s post to focus on what bothered me about it, but I was careful to link to the post itself so that readers could see it in context for themselves, as you clearly did.
I can’t remember anymore why I left out Jack’s assertion that “Wars can’t be waged by poll or vote; it’s a basic principle.” Probably because it struck me as a vague statement intended to bolster his position without saying anything concrete. It’s meaningless fluff, and saying “it’s a basic principle” is a rhetorical trick to head off debate.
On the other hand, I’m pretty sure I omitted “Ethics rules are suspended in war: its a survival situation” because it’s a blanket statement that could be used to justify all kinds of horrors. If you and Jack really believe that “ethics rules are suspended in war” then if our side captures one of our enemy’s cities, should we let our soldiers rape the women and children to improve troop morale? If not, then you think there are some ethical limits to war, and we just differ on what some of them are.
Mark Draughn wrote, “You say Jack is not condoning child soldiers, he’s just saying the government may need child soldiers, and that’s okay because ethics rules are suspended in war.”
It’s interesting that you constantly ignore what Jack Marshall wrote directly to you about that child soldier statement, “I chose the most absurd example I could think of at the time.” and “Indeed I intended it to be absurd. I’m troubled that anyone, especially you, would take it as anything but.” You acknowledged that statement on Ethics Alarms why won’t you acknowledge that they even exist here on your blog, oh wait it doesn’t fit with your false narrative and would undermine your smearing blog post? What happened to you Mark?
The statement “ethics rules are suspended in war: its a survival situation” is NOT saying that everything in war is ethical it’s saying that it’s unethical but considered necessary by those fighting the war. What you and Chris are implying/saying is simply false but here you both are running with a false narrative; that’s typical of Chris but what happened to you Mark?
“Ethics rules are suspended in war: its a survival situation”
You realize this statement makes his argument *worse,* right?
No Chris it doesn’t make his argument worse unless you choose to look at the entire conversation through tunnel vision created by permanently attached industrial-strength weapons-grade thickened ideological blinders.
“industrial-strength weapons-grade thickened ideological blinders.”
H/T Cornelius Heironymous Gotchberg/Professor Emeritus The Gotch Academy
The Gotch
Chris wrote, “Laughing at him was one of best online decisions I’ve made. His choice to not ban Alizia, an open white nationalist who uses his blog to recruit, or Steve-O, a misogynistic psychopath, while banning me for justified laughter after he said there was no reason not to trust the Trump administration to investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, reveals a lot about him.”
That’s not exactly true and you know it.
You were suspended for 30 days violating the rules at Ethics Alarms and given a chance to apologize for intentionally insulting the host. You intentionally tried to violate the terms of the suspension and chose not to apologize before the 30 day suspension was over. The fact is that it was your choice to violate the rules about insulting the host and your choice to violate the rules about trying to post while suspended and you chose not to apologize for your own actions, you chose to leave Ethics Alarms.
Your smears here against the host of Ethics Alarms are unethical.
I have no idea how you think your summary there contradicts anything I said.
Chris wrote, “I have no idea how you think your summary there contradicts anything I said.”
Your level of reading comprehension hasn’t improved one bit since you left Ethics Alarms.
Here let me make this simple enough that even your students could understand it…
You chose to violated the rules at Ethics Alarms multiple times and as a long term commenter you were given the option to be reinstated during your 30 day suspension and you were told how to accomplish that reinstatement, you chose otherwise; your choices, your consequences.
On the other hand; the blogger Alizia and Steve-O didn’t violated the rules at Ethics Alarms. Violate rules and there are consequences.
Your smears here against the host of Ethics Alarms are unethical but coming from you this behavior is typical.
Again: I made the decision to violate the rules, and (with a few exceptions that I regret) chose to accept the consequences of them. I e-mailed Jack letting him know there would be no apology, as I had nothing to apologize for. His statement that the Trump administration could be trusted to investigate the Trump campaign without a special counsel was objectively laughable. He deserved to be laughed at. I laughed at him knowing I would be banned, and did so because it was worth it.
Jack made the decision on what the rules of his blog should be and how to enforce them. Those rules were ethically incoherent. It was against Jack’s rules to laugh at Jack, but not against the rules for a Nazi to use Jack’s website to recruit more Nazis. It was not against the rules for Steve-O to advocate secret police and death squads, or for him to tell me that he was glad to hear my wife and I couldn’t have children, a fact I had shared with the blog some time before.
Jack believes it is worse to laugh at Jack than it is to be a white supremacist or a misogynistic fascist. It is his right to hold those beliefs and to choose to run his blog accordingly. It is my right to criticize those beliefs and choices–not on Ethics Alarms, but here and wherever else I am allowed to do so.
He doesn’t know shit about ethics. That’s not a smear; that’s a valid conclusion based on the evidence.
Chris wrote, “Jack believes it is worse to laugh at Jack than it is to be a white supremacist or a misogynistic fascist. It is his right to hold those beliefs and to choose to run his blog accordingly.”
Chris, as usual, you’re acting like a genuine piece of *^!@ internet troll trying to provoke others! I’m not biting.
Chris wrote, “He doesn’t know shit about ethics.”
That’s an insult that an immature ignorant 7th or 8th grader would spew.
Chris wrote, “That’s not a smear…”
No Chris, what it is is a bald-faced lie meant to be an intentional defaming smear.
Mark Draughn wrote, “When he claims to be “objectively” correct and denounces those who disagree as “morons” ”
That’s false.
You’re openly misrepresenting the host of Ethics Alarms! Disagreement has got nothing to do with it the use of that word, in fact Jack disagrees with a lot of people on his blog including me sometimes and the overwhelming majority of them don’t see the word moron used towards them. Jack only uses the word moron when it’s fully appropriate.
I went back and looked at a lot of conversations you had at Ethics Alarms and Jack always showed you respect at Ethics Alarms even if you disagreed. This blog post has exposed a deep seeded bias against Marshall, why that bias exists is up to you to figure out.
“Jack only uses the word moron when it’s fully appropriate.”
Obviously, I disagree. He’s sometimes called people morons for taking positions that I happen to agree with, and by doing so, he has discouraged me from participating in the conversation because I would have to start from a position that he has already labeled as moronic.
It’s his blog, and he’s more than welcome to take whatever steps he wants to steer the conversation. He has chosen to steer it in a direction that leaves me left out, and I accept that. Jack was respectful to me on Ethics Alarms, and I was respectful to him there as well. But this is not Ethics Alarms.
And I’m not biased against Jack Marshall, I’m angry at him.
I read his blog for years, and I liked it. Jack and I disagree on a number of important subjects — the war on drugs, immigration policy, the nature and prevalence of racism, the relationship between law and ethics, the duties citizens owe to their government — but despite our disagreement, I’ve spoken well of Jack here on several occasions, and I’ve defended Jack to other people (which may even have contributed to my getting kicked out of another blog). As I’ve said before, Jack understood that he was in a conversation, and he did blogging right.
But at some point that began to change. The Trump era seems to have brought it out in him. He’s rightly critical of a lot of stupid criticism of Trump, but he also attacks a lot of criticism that seems dead-on to me. He says Trump’s enemies are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, but he himself seems quite deranged in his attacks on Trump’s enemies. He has became less tolerant of dissent and less nuanced in his thinking, and the lack of collegiality has made it a lot harder to stomach his rhetoric on issues where we disagree.
I feel a bit betrayed by all this. I feel like I wasted a lot of time contributing to a blog that is no longer worth it, and I feel it would be a waste of my time to continue to contribute to his blog the way it is. To address these issues as comments on his blog, I would have to be a lot more critical of him personally, rather than just addressing the issues, and that would have gotten me kicked off. So I did it here.
Mark Draughn wrote, “He’s sometimes called people morons for taking positions that I happen to agree with, and by doing so, he has discouraged me from participating in the conversation because I would have to start from a position that he has already labeled as moronic.”
You just made a claim and now it’s time for you to support your claim. What are these positions you speak of?
https://stevewitherspoon.home.blog/2019/11/07/take-individual-responsibility-for-how-you-debate/
Mark Draughn wrote, “It’s his blog, and he’s more than welcome to take whatever steps he wants to steer the conversation. He has chosen to steer it in a direction that leaves me left out, and I accept that.”
Be honest with yourself and others Mark; you don’t accept that at all, it’s part of the reason you’re smearing Jack here on your blog, you “feel a bit betrayed by all this”.
Mark Draughn wrote, “Jack was respectful to me on Ethics Alarms, and I was respectful to him there as well.”
So what’s your problem? Where is this irrational anger coming from?
Mark Draughn wrote, “But this is not Ethics Alarms.”
Wait a minute, above you wrote “It’s his blog, and he’s more than welcome to take whatever steps he wants to steer the conversation” and now you’re saying that “this is not Ethics Alarms”. Do you not see the transparent conflict in what you wrote Mark. Ethics Alarms is NOT what you think it should be or want it to be so it’s not Ethics Alarms and you “feel a bit betrayed by all this”? The problem is within you Mark, not within Jack. Jack doesn’t do things the way you do, so what?
Mark Draughn wrote, “I’m not biased against Jack Marshall”
This blog post shows otherwise.
Mark Draughn wrote, “I’m angry at him.”
That is clear and you’ve allowed your emotions in particular anger (irrelevant emotion in this regard because Jack has done nothing to you) to consume you; see my comment about signature significance below.
Mark Draughn wrote, “But at some point that began to change. The Trump era seems to have brought it out in him. He’s rightly critical of a lot of stupid criticism of Trump, but he also attacks a lot of criticism that seems dead-on to me. He says Trump’s enemies are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, but he himself seems quite deranged in his attacks on Trump’s enemies. He has became less tolerant of dissent and less nuanced in his thinking, and the lack of collegiality has made it a lot harder to stomach his rhetoric on issues where we disagree.”
This is warrantless criticism and it show bias. Jack does a great job of explaining the ethical criticisms he posts based on ethics not politics and there are a LOT of unethical things happening in the USA since November 2016. If you cannot stomach his criticism about the unethical things happening that’s not Jack’s problem, it’s yours. If you disagree with something then say so, I do it all the time and rather bluntly too and I do it without the pointless emotion of anger creeping into the conversation.
Mark Draughn wrote, “I feel a bit betrayed by all this.”
Oh cry me a river Mark! This is emotional drivel.
Mark Draughn wrote, “I feel like I wasted a lot of time contributing to a blog that is no longer worth it, and I feel it would be a waste of my time to continue to contribute to his blog the way it is.”
You’re allowing your emotions to control you. Jack has done nothing to you to warrant this kind of emotional response.
Mark Draughn wrote, “To address these issues as comments on his blog, I would have to be a lot more critical of him personally, rather than just addressing the issues, and that would have gotten me kicked off. So I did it here.”
This section of your comment is a signature significant rationalization. If it was wrong to do what you did on Ethics Alarms then it was wrong to do it here too.
It’s time to figuratively bury the hatchet and address what’s really going on. It’s become really clear to me that you have some internal conflicts about Ethics Alarms and your emotions are overruling the logical side of your brain. You must ask yourself, where is your (what appears to me as irrational) anger is coming from?
The choices are your Mark but personally I hope you resolve your internal conflicts and rejoin Ethics Alarms.
“You just made a claim and now it’s time for you to support your claim.”
Alright, now you’re just sealioning. You and I both agree Jack calls people morons, I’m saying I remember times he used that label for positions that I agreed with, and found it offensive. You can either believe I found it offensive at times or not, but I’m not going to search Ethics Alarms for the hundreds of times he’s called people morons just to find examples that applied to me.
“If it was wrong to do what you did on Ethics Alarms then it was wrong to do it here too.”
Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with with me explaining why I think Jack’s blog is a shit show. I criticize a lot of people on this blog for a lot of different reasons. (Jack does the same on his blog.) However, I felt that it would be wrong to do it in front of Jack’s audience, on a platform that Jack provides, and in contravention of Jack’s comment policies. (Also, it would have been a 2700-word comment, and nobody wants that.)
As for your various comments about me getting “emotional,” Yes, of course I get emotional about things I write about. Otherwise why would I do this for free? And the reason I’m talking about my emotions is because you keep asking me why I’m doing things, and that involves my internal motivations, e.g. emotions. More specifically, though…
(1) Jack’s positions on various issues make me angry because I believe they are wrong, dangerous, cruel, or…whatever. The point is, I get angry when people say things I disagree with when I care strongly about the subject. As does Jack — indeed it’s the whole point of much of his blog.
(2) On the other hand, given my impression that Jack’s blog is something of a shit show these days, I should just walk away and never look back. After all, lots of blogs are shit shows by people I disagree with, and I ignore them by the thousands.
(3) So why do I still care about Ethics Alarms? I don’t entirely understand why, and it makes me angry all over again. I think part of the reason is that Ethics Alarms used to be a lot better, I liked it a lot, and I liked Jack. However much I disagree with his views, he seems like he’s probably pretty decent in person. Because of all that, I developed a certain emotional investment in Ethics Alarms and Jack.
(4) Now that things have changed, I feel betrayed. To be clear, I’m not saying that Jack literally had some duty to me that he betrayed. But it *feels* that way. It’s kind of like — did you ever see a really good movie and then when you heard there was a sequel coming out you got real excited for it, but when you finally saw it, it totally sucked, and you felt let down? That’s the feeling I mean, where someone got you to buy in emotionally and then did something to completely subvert everything you felt was good about the original. That’s how I feel about Ethics Alarms.
Ultimately, my emotional problem is not with Jack or Ethics Alarms. My problem is that for some reason, I give a damn about Jack or Ethics Alarms. To the point where I’m writing lengthy replies to comments on an 8-month old post.
Jack and his blog bring out way to much of a “Someone is *wrong* on the internet” vibe in me. I need find a way to stop
Mark Draughn wrote, “Alright, now you’re just sealioning.”
Hogwash!
Mark Draughn wrote, “I get angry when people say things I disagree with when I care strongly about the subject.”
Mark,
That statement from you is truly signature significant.
How dare someone disagree with you on a topic that you care strongly about!
Also, based on that last signature significant statement I think it would be better for me to bow out of this conversation.
P.S. By chance were you a commenter at madison.com years ago using the moniker Windy?
So when someone disagrees with you on a subject you find important — abortion, Black Lives Matter protests, guns, the quality of Jack Marshall’s blog — you feel nothing at all? There’s nothing you’re passionate about? Nothing that compels you to say something? Just glancing at your blog, I don’t believe that.
“Mark Draughn wrote, “But this is not Ethics Alarms.”
Wait a minute, above you wrote “It’s his blog, and he’s more than welcome to take whatever steps he wants to steer the conversation” and now you’re saying that “this is not Ethics Alarms”. Do you not see the transparent conflict in what you wrote Mark. Ethics Alarms is NOT what you think it should be or want it to be so it’s not Ethics Alarms and you “feel a bit betrayed by all this”?”
Jesus, dude. “This” in that sentence clearly refers to Mark’s own blog. Read better.
Chris wrote, “Jesus, dude. “This” in that sentence clearly refers to Mark’s own blog. Read better.”
Taken in context to the rest of his paragraph (that’s what you do when you read a paragraph Mr. English teacher) I didn’t misinterpret the statement. If he had meant otherwise he should have made that clear.
Mark Draughn wrote on March 1, 2020, “This was mind blowing. Jack Marshall, professional ethicist, approved of child slave soldiers. It was an event of what Jack likes to call “signature significance.” Child soldiers are a monstrous evil, condemned by the whole civilized world. Except Jack Marshall. This strongly suggested to me that maybe Jack the ethicist…isn’t very good at ethics.”
I knew there was something wrong with this misrepresentation and I knew I’d find it.
“approved of child slave soldiers”
BALDERDASH!!!
Here are some inconvenient facts that Draughn has intentionally left out:
========================================================
Windypundit wrote on November 2, 2018 at 10:53 am…
“However, in the comments to an earlier post, you wrote “If four year olds were deemed necessary to win a war, then the government needs the power to conscript four year olds.” This feels to me like it’s an inconsistent position on the subject of adult-ordered violence by four-year-olds without parental consent.”
———————————————————-
Marshall replied on November 2, 2018 at 11:24 am…
“Context is everything: What I wrote—and thanks for the link—was,
“Wars can’t be waged by poll or vote; it’s a basic principle. If four year olds were deemed necessary to win a war, then the government needs the power to conscript four year olds, Ethics rules are suspended in war: its a survival situation. I registered. I looked at it as a duty of citizenship, and like my peers, I had no basis on which to decide what proper Southeast Asia policy should be. Wars and foreign policy are not matters for the public to decide. I didn’t think my ability to vote was relevant to my duty or my obligation, and I still don’t.”
The obvious intent was to communicate the principle that anything truly necessary to win a war can be and must be authorized. Frying two cities of civilians with atomic bombs is, I’m sure you will agree, more repugnant than sending in troops of four-year olds. But it had to be done. I chose the most absurd example I could think of at the time.”
———————————————————-
Windypundit replied November 2, 2018 at 11:35 am…
“Thanks for the serious reply. That comment has disturbed me ever since you wrote it. That you realize its absurd is probably helpful.”
———————————————————-
Marshall replied November 2, 2018 at 11:44 am…
“Indeed I intended it to be absurd. I’m troubled that anyone, especially you, would take it as anything but.”
———————————————————-
Windypundit replied November 2, 2018 at 11:54 am…
“Well, I figured 4-year-old draftees were probably an exaggeration. But you seem to clearly approve of conscripting 18-year-olds, and you implied that you approve of 16- and 15-year-olds, and you say ethics rules are suspended in war…so it hasn’t been real clear how you draw that line.”
———————————————————-
Jack Marshall replied November 2, 2018 at 12:18 pm…
“18 years olds are adults, and no, I have no problem with mandatory military service for men and women as a condition of citizenship. There’s no magic in ages, or where the line is drawn. In a national emergency would drafting physically mature sub-18 teens be justifiable? Sure….if it were a matter of national survival. That’s ethics conflict territory: one ethical principle has to be given higher priority over another.”
========================================================
These comments are all right in that link you provided Mr. Draughn. Did you intentionally forget that Marshall referred to the initial comment about the 4 year olds and fighting a war like this,
“I chose the most absurd example I could think of at the time.” and “Indeed I intended it to be absurd. I’m troubled that anyone, especially you, would take it as anything but.”
Context matters Mr. Draughn.
Marshall explained this in 2018 and here you are nearly two years later in 2020 intentionally smearing him. Your blatant misrepresentations of Marshall tantamount to a personal attack against Marshall. Why would you resort to this kind of smear?
I ask you Mr. Draughn, who is the one that’s not being ethical?
I think I’ve addressed most of these items in earlier comments.
As for “Frying two cities of civilians with atomic bombs is, I’m sure you will agree, more repugnant than sending in troops of four-year olds,” one difference is that those were enemy cities, but those are our children. Enslaving them for war is a monstrous betrayal.
To approach it from a different direction, if the Japanese had discovered our plans to bomb their cities and tried to stop us — by shooting down the planes, or staging long-range air raids against Alamogordo — that would be a justifiable act of warfare, wouldn’t it? Then if you believe the situations are analogous, I assume you agree that parents would be similarly justified in shooting people who try to kidnap their children to fight in a war. I certainly do.
Mark Draughn wrote, “As for “Frying two cities of civilians with atomic bombs is, I’m sure you will agree, more repugnant than sending in troops of four-year olds,” one difference is that those were enemy cities, but those are our children. Enslaving them for war is a monstrous betrayal.”
Now you are INTENTIONALLY ignoring the context which Jack clarified directly to you “I chose the most absurd example I could think of at the time.” and “Indeed I intended it to be absurd. I’m troubled that anyone, especially you, would take it as anything but.” Context matters Mark!
Why do you continue to ignore this fact?
You seem really obsessed with Jack’s “I chose the most absurd example I could think of” line. I ignore it because it’s meaningless in context and doesn’t change anything. In that SAME PARAGRAPH, Jack says, “The obvious intent was to communicate the principle that anything truly necessary to win a war can be and must be authorized. Frying two cities of civilians with atomic bombs is, I’m sure you will agree, more repugnant than sending in troops of four-year olds. But it had to be done.”
The phrases “can be and must be authorized” and “it had to be done” are very clear statements of approval by Jack for horrific acts in time of war. Saying that something is unethical but has to be done is very little different from saying it is, at least on net, ethical.
Mark Draughn wrote, “I ignore it because it’s meaningless in context and doesn’t change anything.”
You must think I’m a blithering idiot.
The context of a statement is NOT meaningless and it’s really clear that you’re intentionally ignoring the context of the statements because it doesn’t support your false narrative.
I’ll repeat what I wrote above…
It’s become really clear to me that you have some internal conflicts about Ethics Alarms and your emotions are overruling the logical side of your brain. You must ask yourself, where is your (what appears to me as irrational) anger is coming from?
The choices are yours Mark but personally I hope you resolve your internal conflicts and rejoin Ethics Alarms.
Wow. What a great invitation. How could he resist?
At this point, you’re just repeating yourself without responding to my arguments.
Either explain how the phrases “can be and must be authorized” and “it had to be done” are not an endorsement of the actions in question or admit you’ve got nothing.
Mark Draughn wrote, “Either explain how the phrases “can be and must be authorized” and “it had to be done” are not an endorsement of the actions in question or admit you’ve got nothing.” (My Bold)
Interesting that you would write that specific statement in bold above right after I wrote this statement “based on that last signature significant statement I think it would be better for me to bow out of this conversation”.
So Mark what part of “I think it would be better for me to bow out of this conversation” did you not understand?
I get notifications about comments in the order they are posted. My reply above was to a comment you write at 2:05pm. I didn’t reach your comment at 3:07pm about bowing out until after that.
If you don’t feel this conversation is worth your time any more, that’s fair.
The straw that broke me was when Jack Marshall declared that Bradley Manning should have been executed for treason. That was the day I left. Since then he’s only gotten more crazed. In my view, he’s a fascist bully. Wishing Manning was dead while, at the same time, supporting President Trump, who is directly responsible for an ever-rising Covid-19 death toll. Indefensible, IMO.
Sorry. I forgot I’d detailed my misgivings with Marshall concerning Bradley Manning in a post on Medium.. This link will take you to that post, dated Aug. 31, 2017. https://medium.com/geezer-speaks/why-i-no-longer-participate-in-jack-marshalls-ethics-alarms-46f9ac3134ac?source=friends_link&sk=4ea9fb27e9f743d5597e1ec23c37f0e4
fattymoon wrote, “The straw that broke me was when Jack Marshall declared that Bradley Manning should have been executed for treason.”
Bradley Manning committed treason and death is one of the possible punishments for Manning’s treason. I also think that Manning’s particular kind of treason warranted the death penalty. If you don’t like that that’s how the law regarding treason is, that’s your choice. Based on your “straw that broke me” statement, I think your reaction to Jack’s opinion on the firing squad was/is likely bigoted.
Bigoted: obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
fattymoon wrote, “Since then he’s only gotten more crazed.”
This is an unwarranted false smear.
Jack is very consistent in his opinions. On the other hand; after looking back at your comments on Ethics Alarms it appears that you have progressed in a direction that was inconsistent with discussions on Ethics Alarms. It’s not Jack that has changed or is changing, it’s you moving further towards the extremes, maybe all that Tequila has permanently changed you.
Here’s a fact for you fattymoon; Jack and others have stated multiple times in the comments since you left that your countering rhetorical perspectives at Ethics Alarms is missed. The same goes for Chris above and Windypundit, Jack has no problem with debating any of you, the problem lies in you.
fattymoon wrote, “In my view, he’s a fascist bully.”
There is nothing, and I do mean nothing, to support that false smear.
Simply put; a fascist is a follower of a political philosophy of fascism. Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. In my humble opinion; it’s the modern day political left extremists that are exhibiting their extreme leanings towards fascism and totalitarianism.
Bully: a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable.
Jack is not a fascist nor a bully.
Your false smears are a reflection on your character not a reflection on Jack’s character.
fattymoon wrote, “Wishing Manning was dead while, at the same time, supporting President Trump, who is directly responsible for an ever-rising Covid-19 death toll. Indefensible, IMO.”
These two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other, in fact the Manning statements were more than three years ago and the COVID-19 problem is this year. You rhetorically conflating them in this way shows a real lack of critical thinking. Plus President Trump is not “directly responsible for an ever-rising Covid-19 death toll”; this argument is extreme propaganda BS! In fact President Trump is not responsible for the mask orders or the shut down orders that are implemented by the States. In fact; the Federal government is limited in what it can and can’t do in this regard, the States are responsible for these kind of things NOT the federal government. The main problem that you and other anti-Trump wind-nuts are missing is “we the people” are the ones not doing the things needed to stop the spread of the virus and President Trump cannot control We The People; We The People have individual rights and if the federal government steps on our rights and breaks the law it gets hammered down in the United States Supreme Court. If people choose to not wear a mask and social distance that is their individual choice and not President Trump’s fault. Blaming President Trump for the COVID-19 deaths shows strong leanings towards the absurd end of the anti-Trump wing-nut extremes.
You should participate in my Testing for Acute Propaganda-Induced Anti-Trump Hysteria Syndrome. Based on your absolutely absurd “directly responsible for an ever-rising Covid-19 death toll” statement above and things I’ve read in your past comments on Ethics Alarms, I’m guessing your score on the propaganda gullibility scale will be rather high.
So much to unpack here, but so little substance. I’ll just leave you with this. https://safeguardyoursoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ps-94-16-dietrich.jpg My participation here ends with this reply. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to vent.
fattymoon wrote, “So much to unpack here, but so little substance.”
Your understanding of substance and mine are on two entirely different ends of the spectrum and, quite frankly based on reality, your understanding is bunk.