Post by Peeler
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 04:52:48 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "jMarshall Zhukov", farted
Post by The greatest truth is honesty
You have a thing about this, almost certainly due to your turbation, penis
envy and exhibitionist desires.
YOU have a thing about this, almost certainly due to your genital
mutilation, the resulting abbreviated jew sub-schlong, and the sale of
your jew foreskin to Manischewitz Inc for use in jew chicken soup.
It's like I keep saying: You ARE clinically insane! You are even insane and
retarded enough to be "proud" of it, like the true insane retard that you
The mangina has no chance against us.
Now here is Jack Marshall writing about Ed Stack.
Ethics Lessons From An Ethics Dunce, Ed Stack, Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO
OCTOBER 27, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL
Ed Stack, the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods, is profiled in Sunday’s New York
Times. He reveals himself as a thorough Ethics Dunce on many fronts, but in
doing so performs a valuable service by showing vividly why the world doesn’t
work, or at least the United States.
Stack had an epiphany, we learn, after the shooting murders of 17 at the
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. “As Mr. Stack
watched the news, he decided to drastically curtail Dick’s gun sales,” we
This is management incompetence, and life incompetence as well. Stack
employed pure emotion to make a business decision with unknown impact. Such
business practices make an executive untrustworthy by definition.
Quote: “But I sat there hearing about the kids who were killed, and I hadn’t
cried that much since my mother passed away. We need to do something. This
has got to stop.”
More incompetence, and irresponsible as well. More than two years after
deciding, based on a single unusual tragedy, that guns are bad, Stack’s
level of criticism remains stuck at the “Do something!” stage. Of course, so
is the anti-gun movement generally, making Stack an excellent symbol of its
lack of policy seriousness and willingness to deal openly with reality.
More on “This has to stop!,” which is used in the Times headline to the
profile. Stack unashamedly admits that he has taken his cues from the
Parkland victims’ families. He says, ” …[W]hat I found surprising of those
families, not one of them said we need to ban all guns, that guns have to go
away. What they said was we need to find common-sense changes to our gun
laws so what happened to our family doesn’t happen anyplace else. If those
families feel that way, I have no idea how the guys in Washington can’t come
together and find a solution to this problem.”
The statement is self-contradictory nonsense, yet similar statements are
made constantly, often on TV, virtually never with any challenges from
journalists who are either themselves operating on emotion or certifiably
dim bulbs. Is Stack being dishonest, or is he really that dumb? If “this
must stop,” what is “this”? Crimes with guns? Mass shootings? Mass shootings
in schools? If citizens have the right to be armed, then crimes with guns
and mass shootings cannot “stop.” They will remain rare, but nothing can
“stop” the misuse of guns if people can own guns.
As for school shootings, Stack, like the emotion-driven Parkland kids and
families, seems to think they are common occurrences. They are anything but
common, or likely, or a risk worth obsessing about. Pretending that they are
otherwise is fearmongering and public deception; believing otherwise is
Stack’s use of the now-familiar “common sense changes” talking point
strongly hints that he is dishonest. Exactly what “changes,” Ed? If they
are common sense changes, shouldn’t they address the shootings you are
outraged over? His assertion that one does not have to ban guns to make all
shooting rampages “stop” so that “what happened to our family doesn’t
happen anyplace else” suggests naivete approaching stupidity.
Quote: “[I]f we do all those things and we save one life, in my mind it’s
all worth it.”
Ugh. Stack’s sentiment is signature significance for, again, an idiot or a
con artist; nobody who isn’t one of these would ever say something so
absurd. (Barack Obama did, and we know he isn’t an idiot, leaving us with….)
Certainly it is the mark of someone who cannot be trusted. Stack is evoking
Rationalization #58 A. The Utilitarian Cheat or “If it saves just one life.”
It’s a really bad one: from the Ethics Alarms Rationalization List:
Invoking Rationalization #58A is as good a test as there is for identifying
an untrustworthy demagogue. The claim that something is worth enacting,
eliminating, establishing or doing is ethically and morally validates “if it
saves juts one life” is aimed directly at the mushy minds of sentimentalists
and the dangerously compassionate. If the argument is made in good faith,
the speaker is an incompetent dolt; usually it is the desperate last resort
of a someone who has found that their real arguments are inadequate or
The insidious trick inherent in the device is that we agree that human life
is precious, and that we can not and will not place a dollar sign on a human
being. The next step, however, in which a single life, or even many, is
deemed justification for any expense or other draconian societal trade-offs,
is impractical and irrational. It would save many lives if automobiles were
built like tanks and could never exceed five miles an hour. Locking up ever
angry husband that threatened the life of an estranged spouse with a
menacing phone call would save many lives. So would forcing women to carry
their babies to term, eliminating the right to have an abortion. Torture
used without restrictions probably would save one life or more. Prohibition
was sold using #57A.
All of these policy conundrums and many others are too complex by far to use
simple-minded absolutism as their ethical guideline, and about 30 seconds of
logical clarity will usually make that clear. Those who employ The
Utilitarian Cheat, however, don’t want clarity. It is an appeal to embrace
acts that can do wide-ranging harm to society, civilization, human
aspirations and liberty, because un-named, speculative lives can be saved.
Though it is opposite of the exploitation of human life for other goals that
Kantian ethics forbids, it is equally invalid.
Stack: “I don’t know how, at least, we can’t get universal background checks
done. For the life of me, I cannot understand how people can see that having
universal background checks or red-flag laws really violates anybody’s
Second Amendment rights.”
I know this is getting repetitious, but Stack is revealing that he lacks
critical thinking skills, or, in the alternative, that he’s trying to
persuade others who lack such skills. He has said that the Parkland shooting
triggered his determination to promote gun control, yet Nicholas Cruz passed
a background check. How, then, are background checks the way to “stop” such
Red flag laws are pre-crime measures, and remove the civil rights of
citizens based on arbitrary criteria, like treatment for dpression. He can’t
see how they violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights? Then he’s too
ignorant to have a role in any debate over guns.
Stack, we learn, is considering running for President.
Oh, fine. He’s opinionated, ignorant, driven by emotion, an irresponsible
manager, embraces rationalizations, excels at virtue-signaling, doesn’t
comprehend the Bill of Rights, and is a sloppy thinker. Has no business
running for President; it would be irresponsible for him to do so. People
like Stack, however continue to win elections, either because they succeed
in making the public dumb, or because the public is dumb.
That, however, is a separate problem.
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.