As I explained in my Jack Marshall day post last year, my plan was to write about Jack Marshall’s Ethics Alarms blog once a year. My few remaining readers may have noticed that I missed the anniversary date.
When I first started reading his Ethics Alarms blog all those years ago, I found Jack to be a fascinating writer and a seemingly endless source of great topics to blog about. We often disagreed, but it was an interesting conversation.
Alas, after a few years, Jack’s authoritarian streak began to grate on me. It had been no big deal in the early years, but as he got more bellicose and less willing to discuss issues — “This is undeniable; mine is an objective observation” — his posts began to infuriate me more and more. I stopped posting comments on his blog, and responded only on my blog, where I didn’t have to be polite.
Eventually, I realized this was probably boring my readers, and I got the idea to limit myself one Ethics Alarms post per year. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but I soon realized that if I was going to write anything about Ethics Alarms after a year went by, I would have to know what Jack had written in that year. I started keeping notes. And because it was fuckin’ 2020, I ended up with a hell of a lot of notes.
I gathered notes all through the pandemic, all through the summer of protests, and all through that stupid, stupid election. My Ethics Alarms clip file grew to more than 22,000 words. I began harvesting clips to assemble a draft post, and I quickly realized I had enough material to carve out some of it into a preview post about Jack’s failure to do the homework when writing about science. I had a huge amount of material.
And then, a few months ago, like turning off a switch, I stopped giving a shit about what Jack Marshall had to say.
I’m not entirely sure why. Probably because Trump lost and we had vaccines for the pandemic, so Jack’s idiotic anti-anti-Trump stance seemed less consequential, as did his ridiculous takes on COVID-19, which to this day he calls the “Wuhan virus” (because the names used by the entire world health community are too politically correct or something). Even Jack’s authoritarian fan-boy streak is somewhat tempered by the fact that he sees the problem more clearly when it comes from the political left.
I considered putting together a post anyway, just because I said I would, but ultimately I decided not to.
In part it’s because, for all my disagreements with Jack, I don’t want him to get cancelled. Although I disagree strongly with much of Jack’s ethical thinking about issues like immigration, race relations, and law enforcement, I’ve never heard anything bad about they way he teaches existing legal ethics principles as they apply to lawyers. If Jack’s business ever does get cancelled, it will be because of something he wrote at Ethics Alarms, not because of something I wrote here, but I’d still rather not have anything I wrote contribute to it.
In part, also, it’s because Jack occasionally wrote things like this:
I began today driving for two hours to find a meeting for which I had been given the wrong address, and, like the fool that I have always been, didn’t bring along the phone number of anyone who could help me. It is during ordeals like this that I begin to reflect on what a failure and underachiever I am, and how I really don’t have enough time left for turnaround. All that privilege, and good fortune, wasted. And I have no one to blame but myself.
I’ve also noticed that Jack is posting a lot more, his posts have a lot more typos and formatting errors, and he seems angrier. I believe he mentioned that some family members have had health problems. I also suspect the various lockdowns and travel limits probably shut down off much of his lecture business for months, and he’s mentioned having problems finding work. I know his commenters recently pitched in to buy him a new computer.
Although I enjoy mocking Jack for being a self-righteous blowhard, because I feel he brings it on himself, I don’t want to go on mocking someone who’s suffering from the stress of holding it together through a difficult time. So, unless something changes, this is all I have to say about Jack.
Another former commenter just sent me his post from last month where he ranted about sticking around in a CVS for a half hour after accosting a worker and being asked to leave, even being threatened by a manager that they were going to call the police on him, all because he couldn’t accept that a machine was malfunctioning. I’ve seen a lot of “Jack acting like a Karen but thinking he’s the hero” posts, but this one takes the cake. The man is not well, and must not have much of a life if he has the time to do all this plus post three articles a day for his ever-dwindling audience. Despite everything, I hope he can find his way back to happiness and a more healthy outlook on life.
Chris wrote, “Another former commenter just sent me his post from last month where he ranted about sticking around in a CVS for a half hour after accosting a worker and being asked to leave, even being threatened by a manager that they were going to call the police on him, all because he couldn’t accept that a machine was malfunctioning.”
That’s actually not a complete representation of the incident, it’s more like Chris intentionally cherry picked specific things and presented them to smear Jack.
Here’s a link to the actual blog post that Chris referred to, readers can make up their own mind without the fog of Chris’s selectively cherry picked misrepresentation.
Chris wrote, “I’ve seen a lot of “Jack acting like a Karen but thinking he’s the hero” posts, but this one takes the cake. The man is not well, and must not have much of a life if he has the time to do all this plus post three articles a day for his ever-dwindling audience.”
Chris’s apparent obsession to smear Jack at every opportunity is obvious and his cherry picking misrepresentations are unethical. When is Chris going to get over his hate and apparent obsession to smear Jack? Let it go Chris.
It’s almost an ethical (ha) duty to point out how ridiculous this apparent “ethicist” really is. Jack doesn’t get to lecture people on ethical behavior and not be criticized for it when he runs his own blog like an immature wannabe authoritarian.
And yes, Chris’ comment is totally in the right and yours is actually the one cherry picking. This is how Jack and his small legion of fans (those who are left) usually operate btw. By totally ignoring reality and lying.
Tom wrote, “It’s almost an ethical (ha) duty to point out how ridiculous this apparent “ethicist” really is. Jack doesn’t get to lecture people on ethical behavior and not be criticized for it when he runs his own blog like an immature wannabe authoritarian.”
That’s an ad hominem.
Jack does get to lecture people on ethical, he is literally a professional ethicist.
People disagree with Jack all the time in his comment threads and sometimes people go as far as to criticize Jack in ways that are respectful of their host and others in ways that are completely disrespectful of their host. I am one of the commenters that disagrees with Jack sometimes too, I respectfully criticize him. What’s unacceptable to do that you don’t seem to be fully understanding is there is a huge difference between being hard on a blogger and respectfully disagreeing and/or criticizing and what you are doing by slinging sophomoric personal ad hominems aimed at Jack and those that participate at Ethics Alarms. Sophomoric personal ad hominems attacking Jack and those that participate on his blog are unacceptable, it’s trolling, and if that’s what you chose to do on his blog you deserve to be publicly chided for your actions and/or banned. Choose differently and you’ll get different reactions.
Tom wrote, “And yes, Chris’ comment is totally in the right and yours is actually the one cherry picking.”
You’re welcome to your opinion about what Chris wrote but you’re not welcome to your own facts. Your “yours is actually the one cherry picking.” is a verifiably false statement and based on the available information I think it’s fair to call it an intentional lie. I cherry picked nothing, in fact I actually quoted everything Chris wrote and shared my opinion about everything Chris wrote. If you don’t like my opinion about what Chris wrote, that tough but you lying about what I wrote is literally moronic, as in very foolish, when the evidence is right there for everyone to review.
Tom wrote, “This is how Jack and his small legion of fans (those who are left) usually operate btw. By totally ignoring reality and lying.”
Again; you are welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts.
That statement sounds like an ad hominem but I’ll give you a chance to support your claim; exactly what reality did I totally ignore and where did I lie. If you think you can support your claim please be very specific with the details.
Reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Lie: to knowingly make false statements.
Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
“That’s an ad hominem.”
Fine. Jack doesn’t get to lecture people on ethical behavior and not be criticized for it when he runs his own blog unethically like him banning people for laughing at him, how he lied about Barry “banning” him, how he calls people morons, etc.
Fixed it for you.
“Jack does get to lecture people on ethical, he is literally a professional ethicist.”
No. Another lie you all fell for. That’s not a real thing and something he uses as a way to appear superior.
Tom wrote, “No. Another lie you all fell for. That’s not a real thing and something he uses as a way to appear superior.”
It’s interesting how you throw around the word “lie” without any support whatsoever to backup your claim but yet there is literal proof to prove your assertion false.
Professional: engaged in a specified activity as one’s main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.
Ethicist: a person who specializes in or writes on ethics.
Jack Marshall is literally a professional ethicist in every sense; Marshall literally makes his living traveling around the USA teaching, consulting, speaking and writing about ethics, and a lawyer, and the president of ProEthics, Ltd.
With the knowledge base that you seem to have about Jack Marshall only a moron or a lying internet troll would write that “[Professional Ethicist] That’s not a real thing”, it’s literally a false statement. I’m fine with you choosing which word is more accurate, moron or troll, here are some actual definitions to help you choose.
Moron: noun a foolish or stupid person.
Foolish: adjective (of a person or action) lacking good sense or judgment; unwise.
Troll: noun (abbreviated version of internet troll) Those that post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.
There was another recent post where he described screaming at children for the apparent crime of not knowing that their scooters would potentially frighten his dog. The line that always occurs to me when I peak in on his personal ramblings is the one that goes something like “when you think everyone around you an is asshole, maybe the asshole is YOU.” One of these days he’s going to spout off to the wrong person & get his teeth knocked out.
I think all of the mental gymnastics he had to perform during the Trump years really left him in bad shape – I think somewhere deep down inside that shriveling husk he knows he’s become increasingly full of shit. And the comments section over there can be downright frightening at times.
I don’t think Jack recognizes that he’s changed, and I think the comments section is a key part of that.
Even back in the early days, I was never really able to change Jack’s mind on anything important, but at least he acknowledged that those of us who disagreed with him were arguing from a place of sincerity and good will. But when he started denouncing us as unethical dunces and morons — and perhaps more importantly, allowed his commenters to say far more abusive things to us, while threatening to ban us for far less — it stopped being a fun intellectual discussion.
I think he has slowly banned or driven away almost everyone who disagrees with him, leaving behind only those who share his worldview. He’s turned his fine ethics blog into a clown show, but he can’t see it, and nobody he will believe is telling him otherwise,
Great comment and couldn’t agree more. It was what I was trying to show him with my point about Charles leaving his blog, but he kinda just ignored what I said.
He should wonder why someone like Charles left. And why all that is left are weirdos.
I know you said I’m not welcome here but I hope you will allow a comment once in a while.
Mark wrote, “I don’t think Jack recognizes that he’s changed”
You’re welcome to your opinion on this but actually I think your perception that Jack has changed is incorrect. I’ve been around Ethics Alarms for many years and I haven’t detected a noticeable change in what Jack does, what I have detected (especially during the Trump Presidency) is a noticeable change in the tolerance level of those that are left of the political aisle. Many politically left of center have become so anti classic liberal that they simply cannot see how they have changed and when the ethical truth about a specific topic is presented to them and it conflicts with their perception of the world around them they can’t take it. It’s their own inability to deal with a challenge to their ethical core that’s driving them away not Jack. It’s not a pleasant thing for some people to stand in front of a character revealing mirror and look inward.
Mark wrote, “So, unless something changes, this is all I have to say about Jack.”
I commend you for at least trying to let it go, you certainly don’t want disagreeing with Jack or Ethics Alarms commentary to become an obsession like it has for some other people we know that can’t let it go, those kind of obsessions can lead people to posting ad hominems with no real arguments regarding blog content.
Tom wrote, “It was what I was trying to show him with my point about Charles leaving his blog, but he kinda just ignored what I said. He should wonder why someone like Charles left. And why all that is left are weirdos.”
Jack and a lot of other people at Ethics Alarms, including me, wondered what was really behind Charles leaving.
By the way; it’s really nice to know what you really think of the people you disagree with at Ethics Alarms, your “all that is left are weirdos” comment it’s signature significant. Have you ever thought that maybe the reason you were ignored is because of your “all that is left are weirdos” bias, if you’re not careful bias can make you stupid. I bet your bias has come across in your commentary, that might be something for you to self-reflect on.
Intelligent people who want nuanced discussion have left the blog because Jack doesn’t want discussion…he wants agreement. Sure, you can disagree with him a little bit, but the majority of the time, Jack turns to insults and burying his head in the sand.
How many times has he called some a moron or an idiot or just said “NO NO NO WRONG”? What type of adult lecturing people about ethics talks to people this way? The right-winged folks insulted the dissenting views on Jack’s blog while also engaging in bad faith arguments…so the only option for them was to leave, which is exactly what happened.
Like how one of you made fun of a liberal commentator for not being able to have kids. That should have been an automatic ban from Jack. Why would someone participate someplace where this behavior is tolerated?
Also, take Barry who also no longer comments there. Jack lied about Barry apparently banning him from his blog…Barry didn’t ban Jack, and when Barry called Jack out for the lie, no apology was given or anything that closely resembles ethical behavior.
But more importantly…
Barry was talking to Jack about how moderation HELPS a blog. Barry was arguing that Jack allows mean spirited comments to stand from people he agrees with, and that this pushes away dissenting views, resulting in only an echo-chamber (which is what it is now). It was amazing Barry predicted exactly what was going to happen to the blog.
I also think many people have realized (like Charles has) that Jack can’t clearly express a view without some sort of critical thinking blunder. The debacle Jack had with Erik T is a perfect example of this.
He recently wrote about Ann Althouse and of course had to insult her. But the insult WASN’T EVEN ACCURATE. How can anyone trust this guy to get anything right about ethics or current events when he can’t even get his facts straight?
He claimed Ann got rid of her comment section because she had a “tantrum over people paying more attention to commenters than her, or something..” Thats not why she got rid of her comments! He even wrote an entire blog post about her decision and he couldn’t even get that part correct, and even in his error, he had to insult her.
Funny enough, Ann said:
“I am unhappy with the way right-wing commenters have squatted here and made it unpleasant for other people. I don’t want to spend my time maintaining a safe space for right-wingers. I’m not even a conservative. I’m just someone who wanted the full range of discussion, but this is not happening. This is a relatively small group of right-wingers bent on owning the space and excluding others. I am not here for that.”
It’s a shame Jack never took that position.
(It’s also amusing Jack said “Atlthouse found herself defending President Trump much the way I did, and neither of us liked him or could be considered ‘supporters'” even though, ya know, he voted for Trump! It’s this sort of dishonesty that has killed his blog)
Tom wrote, “Intelligent people who want nuanced discussion have left the blog because Jack doesn’t want discussion…he wants agreement. Sure, you can disagree with him a little bit, but the majority of the time, Jack turns to insults and burying his head in the sand.”
Sure intelligent people want nuanced discussion but we clearly disagree on your other points.
Tom wrote, “How many times has he called some a moron or an idiot or just said “NO NO NO WRONG”? What type of adult lecturing people about ethics talks to people this way?”
I’ve seen times that Jack has used the word moron or idiot and written something to the effect of “no, no, no, you’re wrong”. What you don’t seem to be paying attention to is that those that are identified in such ways are acting like morons or idiots and are dead wrong on the facts. It’s not unethical to identify when people are acting moronic, in fact it’s the adult thing to do to identify those behaviors specifically and explain to them why their behaviors are wrong.
Tom wrote, “The right-winged folks insulted the dissenting views on Jack’s blog while also engaging in bad faith arguments”
I get the impression that you don’t seem to think that people are welcome to their own opinions and free to share those opinions if they differ from something that you think is correct. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen; debating online is not for the faint of heart or psychological snowflakes. That aside; you made a claim about bad faith arguments, support your claim with facts.
Tom wrote, “Like how one of you made fun of a liberal commentator for not being able to have kids. That should have been an automatic ban from Jack. Why would someone participate someplace where this behavior is tolerated?”
Support your claim by quoting the actual comment and provide a link to the comment thread so everyone here can get the full context of the conversation; if you can’t support your claim then don’t make claims you cannot support.
Also; Ethics Alarms has comment policies, I suggest you take the time to actually read them
https://ethicsalarms.com/comment-policies/
Tom wrote, “Also, take Barry who also no longer comments there. Jack lied about Barry apparently banning him from his blog…Barry didn’t ban Jack, and when Barry called Jack out for the lie, no apology was given or anything that closely resembles ethical behavior. But more importantly…Barry was talking to Jack about how moderation HELPS a blog. Barry was arguing that Jack allows mean spirited comments to stand from people he agrees with, and that this pushes away dissenting views, resulting in only an echo-chamber (which is what it is now). It was amazing Barry predicted exactly what was going to happen to the blog.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Please support your claim with facts and a link.
Tom wrote, “The debacle Jack had with Erik T is a perfect example of this.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Please support this claim with a link to the discussion.
Tom wrote, “He claimed Ann got rid of her comment section because she had a “tantrum over people paying more attention to commenters than her, or something..” That’s not why she got rid of her comments! He even wrote an entire blog post about her decision and he couldn’t even get that part correct, and even in his error, he had to insult her.”
Your account of this is factually incorrect, Jack’s opinion of what Althouse wrote regarding comment on her blog is based on actual facts. Jack accurately quoted Althouse and correctly described her tantrum. Here is a link to Jacks post about Althouse’s tantrum. https://ethicsalarms.com/2021/04/04/blogging-ethics-althouse-snaps/
I was a routine contributor to Althouse’s blog. I have completely stopped reading and participating because her commenting format really sucks, replies are not nested and it’s literally impossible to actually have a conversation with anyone without wading through hundreds of comments from internet trolls that disrupt conversations. The comment threads on Althouse’s blog are a real mess.
Tom wrote, “It’s also amusing Jack said “Althouse found herself defending President Trump much the way I did, and neither of us liked him or could be considered ‘supporters’” even though, ya know, he voted for Trump! It’s this sort of dishonesty that has killed his blog”
Here’s a fact for people that base their opinions on assumptions instead of facts just like you did in that statement; you’re assumptions are making an ass out of you.
You don’t have to have voted for President Trump or support President Trump’s policies to pointedly criticize the blatantly unethical, immoral behaviors and actions towards President Trump and those that did support him during his presidency.
I never supported Donald Trump’s candidacy and I’ve had many, many harsh things to say about Donald Trump, I did not vote for Donald Trump for President in 2016. All that said; I support the Office of the President of the United States and here are the words I used for President Obama, President Trump and President Biden when they were elected, Congratulations for being elected to the President of the United States, now get to work and do a good job for we the people of the USA. Once a candidate is elected by the people for the office of the President of the United States the people should respect the choice of the people by respecting the person that was elected, this was NOT afforded President Trump at any time during his presidency. The political left lost their collective minds, flushed their ethics and set a new precedent for the lack of respect for the Office of the President and attacked everything President Trump said and did and attacked him from every possible angle for four years straight. What the political left did to President Trump was unethical, immoral and just plain wrong and if you cannot see that then you are part of the problem, period.
“What you don’t seem to be paying attention to is that those that are identified in such ways are acting like morons or idiots and are dead wrong on the facts. ”
No. But I’m glad you admit Jack does this. Even if the commentators were acting idiotically, it’s still immature and disrespectful for Jack to speak this way. Why would people stay around to be called names by someone who apparently is an “ethics professional’? Who wants this type of discussion?
Here are the Barry links:
https://ethicsalarms.com/2014/01/06/comment-of-the-day-on-civility-and-blog-moderation-ethics-by-ampersand/#comments
Read the comments. Jack accused Barry of kicking him off his blog, then when Barry said “That’s not what happened, I gave you a warning and edited your comment”, Jack said:
Your claim that your “warning,” accompanied by trashing the words I wrote, which were not out of line but only properly diagnosed the absurd dishonesty and political bias of your commenters, was not an ejection is ludicrous. I was mistreated and insulted, and no one but a pathetic worm would crawl back after such abuse. I guess you owe me an apology for regarding me as a pathetic worm.
So, instead of Jack apologizing for lying…he doubles down. Real ethical. That’s when Barry left the blog for good.
About Ann….you’re linking to Jack’s original post about why Ann disabled comments. But he RECENTLY (as in like two days ago) said “Ann is accepting comments again after a brief interruption following her ill-considered tantrum over people paying more attention to commenters than her, or something.”
Again, that’s not why Ann disabled comments…another lie by Jack. Ann didn’t want to waste her time moderating the comment section.
The Eric T debacle….
https://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2010/04/friends-or-yesmen.html
https://www.popehat.com/2010/04/08/the-april-fool-saga-parts-i-ix/
Jack thought Eric should have been punished for an April fools joke. Then when Jack was proven wrong…he again, doubled down, thinking he knew better, until days went by and he finally admitted he was wrong.
Again with the Trump stuff..Jack said he can’t be considered a supporter of Trump…even though he voted for Trump…No one…and I mean no one besides you and the other steady commentators on Jack’s blog would believe that “I’m not a supporter of Trump” and “I voted for Trump” make any sense.
He also made an entire post about me based on a lie. He used my appeal to the masses fallacy as a bases for refuting my argument…While TOTALLY IGNORING my actual argument.
How is any of this ethical?
Tom wrote, “Read the comments. Jack accused Barry of kicking him off his blog, then when Barry said “That’s not what happened, I gave you a warning and edited your comment””
Thanks for the link, that was almost two years before I started participating on Ethics Alarms.
There was nothing wrong with what Jack wrote on Barry’s site and I think it’s clear that you really don’t understand what’s going on, let me help.
What Barry did was a pseudo banning and that kind of
pseudo banningis wildly unethical bigotry based censorship that’s meant to publicly smear the target.“What Barry did was a pseudo banning and that kind of pseudo banning is wildly unethical bigotry based censorship that’s meant to publicly smear the target”
Criticism is censorship now?
Well, that’s practically the basis of modern right-wing thought, so I guess I’m not surprised to see it from you.
Chris wrote, “Criticism is censorship now?”
Nope, false again. I’m not biting on trolling comments. Reread with your thinking cap on, Mr. Teacher.
It’s interesting that you haven’t learned much since your time on Ethics Alarms, nearly everything you write is still a misrepresentation.
What Barry did was a pseudo banning and that kind of pseudo banning is wildly unethical bigotry based censorship that’s meant to publicly smear the target.
What? No…
Tom wrote, “What? No…”
That’s not an argument. Try again.
I’m going to help clear up something before I walk away from this thread.
I honestly could have used a better word in my “pseudo banning” phrase to better convey my intent, that better word would be “defacto banning”.
In my opinion there are three ways to moderate 1) outright ban a commenter for breaking stated or implied rules and tell them why they are banned 2) give the commenter a fixed length of time ban aka a temporary “ban” for rule infractions 3) tell the commenter that they are no longer welcome which opens up the possibility of a civil reconciliation dialog at a later date – this is what happened between Mark and I.
I have been defacto banned similar to the method mentioned above and I’ve been defacto banned where every comment I post gets dumped into and bottomless abyss of moderation. These things are not banning the commenter outright but defacto banning them; in other words, what the commenter writes either gets deleted, not posted, the intent changed by intentional editing or lined through text, etc. All these things are defacto banning and what rhetorical cowards do. It’s like the moderators are tactically trolling their own commenters to selectively chill speech they don’t like and drive away commenters they disagree with.
I hope that clears up some confusion some fellow commenters had.
See y’all in another thread, I’m letting go of this one.
With that I bid you adieu.
Tom wrote, “Your claim that your “warning,” accompanied by trashing the words I wrote, which were not out of line but only properly diagnosed the absurd dishonesty and political bias of your commenters, was not an ejection is ludicrous. I was mistreated and insulted, and no one but a pathetic worm would crawl back after such abuse. I guess you owe me an apology for regarding me as a pathetic worm.”
So am I to understand that you don’t like it when someone accurately points out things about the words you actually write; your words are all we have as a window into your character.
Tom wrote, “I guess you owe me an apology for regarding me as a pathetic worm.”
You’re welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts. You’ll get no apology from me for you claiming that I did something that I did not do.
Tom wrote, “So, instead of Jack apologizing for lying…he doubles down. Real ethical. That’s when Barry left the blog for good.”
As you can tell by what Jack wrote in the link you provided, Jack didn’t lie. What Barry did was unethical and Jack was correct to point it out.
Tom wrote, “About Ann….you’re linking to Jack’s original post about why Ann disabled comments. But he RECENTLY (as in like two days ago) said “Ann is accepting comments again after a brief interruption following her ill-considered tantrum over people paying more attention to commenters than her, or something.”
Again, that’s not why Ann disabled comments…another lie by Jack. Ann didn’t want to waste her time moderating the comment section.”
No Tom, Jack didn’t lie, a lie is a very specific thing. Jack shared his opinion of Althouse’s reasoning based on what Althouse actually wrote, and I completely agree with his opinion. Maybe you should actually spend some quality time reading a properly comprehending what Althouse actually wrote.
Okay…then his opinion on why Ann disabled her comments is wrong and not factual.
There.
Tom wrote, “Okay…then his opinion on why Ann disabled her comments is wrong and not factual. There.”
That’s trolling Tom.
Thanks for the Eric T links.
Did you read Jack’s extensive explanation and apology for that incident? Read the entire blog post including the updates at the bottom.
Jack’s apology was a #1 on the The Apology Scale. It seems to me that the what you’ve done here is to focus on the initial wrong while completely glassing over the apology and the lesson learned. That’s almost like a lie by omission and a bit unethical, but I suppose when your only purpose for sharing the Eric T incident is to smear Jack the ends justifies the means.
Tom wrote, “Again with the Trump stuff..Jack said he can’t be considered a supporter of Trump…even though he voted for Trump…No one…and I mean no one besides you and the other steady commentators on Jack’s blog would believe that “I’m not a supporter of Trump” and “I voted for Trump” make any sense.”
Is that really what you consider critical thinking and/or logic? Your absolutism is absurd, it’s an unethical smear. If all you can do is smear with absolutism, you’ve lost the argument.
Have you ever heard the phrase “the lesser of two evils”?
The political left hasn’t been able to sell their rhetoric to the people so they’ve been encourage the public to vote against their opposition and then when/if they win they claim that everyone voted for them and deem it a mandate.
Voting against the worst of two evils by voting for the lesser of two evils is not, I repeat NOT supporting the candidate you voted for and until you can squeeze that actual logic between the seemingly impenetrable membrane of unethical absolutism you’ll never understand it.
Tom wrote, “He also made an entire post about me based on a lie. He used my appeal to the masses fallacy as a bases for refuting my argument…While TOTALLY IGNORING my actual argument.”
I don’t know what you’re talking about, where is the link to that blog post and discussion?
Also….stop using the term “signature significant”
It’s a made up word that’s not real and makes no sense.
Tom wrote, “Also….stop using the term “signature significant”
I’ll use any terminology that I can reasonably define whether you like it or not, Tom. You demanding that I stop using it is sophomoric nonsense. Why don’t you stop your childish whining about things you don’t seem understand.
Tom wrote, “It’s a made up word that’s not real and makes no sense.”
Just because you don’t understand the terminology doesn’t mean that it makes no sense. Educate yourself.
Signature Significance: posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant.
I can make up terms too ya know? Doesn’t make them real.
Tom wrote, “I can make up terms too ya know? Doesn’t make them real.”
Denial is not just a river in Egypt Tom.
About Jack Marshall’s opinion of President Trump.
For your reading pleasure…
Three Ethics Metaphors: The Rise, The Presidency And The Fall Of Donald J. Trump, Part I
Three Ethics Metaphors: The Rise, The Presidency And The Fall Of Donald J. Trump, Part II
All of those opinions are rendered meaningless since he voted for Trump.
Tom wrote, “All of those opinions are rendered meaningless since he voted for Trump.”
That statement is pure unadulterated bigotry.
Bigotry: obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
??
Jack said he wasn’t a supporter of Trump and I said that’s nonsensical since he literally voted for Trump.
Then you linked to posts written by Jack where he was critical of Trump.
Again…him writing a blog post being critical of trump is meaningless in this discussion since he actually voted for Trump and is therefore a supporter of Trump.
Read my comment above.
Please specify exactly what parts of my description of Jack’s actions are inaccurate.
Chris wrote, “Please specify exactly what parts of my description of Jack’s actions are inaccurate.”
As usual Chris, this school teacher that’s teaching very impressionable youth at a very critical time in their development, either can’t comprehend what I actually wrote or is intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote. The first means Chris is not a very smart teacher and the second means he’s an unethical internet troll, I’ll let Chris choose which one is the most accurate.
How about Chris puts on his thinking cap so he can at least appear to be smarter than his students and try to read what I wrote again. My exact words were…
“That’s actually not a complete representation of the incident, it’s more like Chris intentionally cherry picked specific things and presented them to smear Jack.”
So you’re saying my description of Jack’s actions *were* accurate.
Thanks!
Chris wrote, “So you’re saying my description of Jack’s actions *were* accurate.”
Nope, wrong again.
I’ve told you before that maybe you’ve been hanging around your Middle School students too long, it appears to me that their reasoning skills have rubbed off on you instead of the adult skills you’re supposed to have rubbing off on them.
Professional ethics teacher maybe…a teacher who teaches math isn’t a mathematician.
Tom wrote, “Professional ethics teacher maybe…a teacher who teaches math isn’t a mathematician.”
I know that reality doesn’t quite fit your false narrative and you want to continue spewing your nonsense, well Tom, I’m not stopping you, I’m just here watching you to dig yourself deeper into character revealing hole.
Again Tom, denial is not just a river in Egypt.
That’s great he finally apologized after writing multiple posts about how everyone was wrong and he was right but not before multiple lawyers told him he was totally wrong.
Doesn’t change how he has flaws in his critical thinking skills. Especially on a topic he was supposed to be an expert on.
Tom wrote, “That’s great he finally apologized after writing multiple posts about how everyone was wrong and he was right but not before multiple lawyers told him he was totally wrong. Doesn’t change how he has flaws in his critical thinking skills. Especially on a topic he was supposed to be an expert on.”
Be honest to yourself and others Tom, either you didn’t bother to actually read or you didn’t comprehend Jack’s entire apology blog post that I linked to. Jack owned up to his error, apologized appropriately and applied the exact same ethics standards on himself that he applies to others. His apology reveals his personal character, his honesty, his total commitment to ethics, and his commitment to his chosen profession as a professional ethicist where your continued smears about this incident while completely ignoring the content of his apology reveals your character flaws. Sobeit.
I understand that your bigoted “all that is left are weirdos” bias has driven you to be a bit obsessed with continuing your smearing narratives about Jack but in the process you’re revealing some of your negative personal traits, what you’re doing is a bit self-destructive and will likely eat away at your core morals.
Your choices, your consequences.
P.S. If this is the kind of argumentation you presented while you participated in the commentary at Ethics Alarms, I completely understand why you didn’t fit in very well.
Chris & Tom,
I commend Mark for trying to let go of his disagreements with Jack Marshall of Ethics Alarms, I really hope that you two can eventually let go of your tendencies to smear Jack, the only people your petty smears are hurting is you.
It’s been an interesting and revealing conversation, catch y’all later.
How is Jack pseudo banned (a made up term that doesn’t make any sense) if he isn’t banned and can still comment?
That’s like saying you’re in “pseudo jail” because a judge yelled at you even though you’re totally free and not in jail at all.
This is why you and the other commentators are absurd. You just invent things.
Tom,
You don’t argue in good faith, you troll.
We’re done here.
Steve
tHats NOT aN aRguMENt
That’s not an argument. TRY AGAIN
Voting for Trump makes you a Trump supporter.
Obviously…
I mean…of course you have nothing to say to my response because there’s nothing you CAN say that would make any sense.
I wrote, “You don’t argue in good faith, you troll.”
Tom wrote, “I mean…of course you have nothing to say to my response because there’s nothing you CAN say that would make any sense.”
Thanks for confirming to me that you’re trolling.
Troll: noun (abbreviated version of internet troll) Those that post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.
Out of consideration for our host Mark, I’m not going to go down another rabbit hole with Tom, I don’t feed trolls.
We’re not just done here Tom, we’re done permanently. You get the last words so now you have to make a choice, how will you choose to use your last words?
Yea, you don’t know what a troll is.
Why don’t you just admit Jack was wrong and lied about being banned? There’s no such thing as a pseudo ban.
Could Jack still comment on Barry’s blog?
Yes
That means no ban. You’re just wrong here. Apparently me being correct is being a “troll”
defacto banning….
That’s actually a worse phrase but okay…
How about “no banning” since ya know…he wasn’t banned and could post there whenever he wanted.
What reality do you people live in?
Closing the comments because I think we’ve all had enough of this.