CORRESPONDENCES OF MARC SUSSELMAN PART 4
6 September 2023
Marc Susselman:
“Different cases will sustain different degrees of credibility and...
The general enterprise of finding parallels should be undertaken with great scholarly sensitivity and a large degree of caution, and even humility.”
An accurate appraisal of the practice of commenting on any discipline about which one has little to no knowledge, training or experience, including philosophers who have not studied or practiced law as a discipline, offering comments on the law, including the validity of a criminal indictment and the implications of the First Amendment’s application to a particular indictment, and evaluating the analysis of one who has studied law (as well as philosophy) and practiced civil and criminal law for decades.
********
15 September 2023
Marc Susselman:
I want to make clear that I did not submit the two critical comments by Anonymous on today's posting by Prof. Wolff, although I do sympathize with them. I have kept true to my word, and have not submitted any comments, under any pseudonym, to the blog since I was expelled.
********
18 September 2023
MS said:
David,
Thank you for the compliment. It's gratifying to know that you find someone even more annoying than me.
********
MS said:
21 September 2023
David,
I am not a fan of Dennis Prager either, but he has not in any of the Prager U videos taken the position that slavery was OK. He has vigorously taken the opposite position. See the video at the link below:
https://www.prageru.com/video/was-the-civil-war-about-slavery
I have not checked his other videos to confirm or disconfirm whether what you say about them is accurate. But if your comment about his views on slavery is an example of their accuracy, they are specious. You should be more circumspect regarding the views that you attribute to those with whom you disagree.
Mr. Pillette and others on Prof. Wolff’s blog take it for granted that their political and ethical views are somehow sacrosanct, and that the views of others, e.g., devout Catholics, are indefensible. Where Mr. Pillette and others acquire their sense of moral superiority, which, as I have pointed out in my past comments on Prof. Wolff’s blog, they do not deign to prove or defend, I have no idea.
********
MS said:
David,
Are you going to retract the libelous statement you wrote on Prof. Wolff's blog regarding Dennis Prager's purported views on slavery, for all the world to see?
********
MS wrote:
David,
If someone wrote on a blog that you defended slavery, you would be outraged. Yet you have attributed that false opinion to Dennis Prager and have made no effort to correct it. Do you not think that you have a moral obligation, in addition to a legal obligation, to correct your misstatement?
********
22 September 2023
MS wrote:
David,
You referred on Prof. Wolff’s blog to Dennis Prager as a “vile” human being because you disagree with several of his political and cultural views. Yet you proceeded to publish a lie about his views regarding slavery, claiming that he defended slavery, when he clearly and conspicuously did not. You are a professor of ethics, and have commented frequently regarding ethics on Prof. Wolff’s blog. Yet you libeled Dennis Prager by accusing him of defending slavery, when he has not, and has, in the video I posted above, adamantly denounced slavery as a moral wrong.
You have a moral obligation to correct your misstatement regarding Dennis Prager on Prof. Wolff’s blog. If you refuse to do so, who is the “vile” human being?
Marc
********
Michael,
Please do me a favor and post the link below, which Prof. Zimmerman studiously avoided listing, to the video in which Prager discusses the immorality of slavery and the role it played in the Civil War.
Thank you.
"Video Link: Was the Civil War about Slavery?"
********
MS said:
David,
That’s rich – you are finally fed up with my verbal abuse of you! On a public blog, you make the inflammatory accusation that a prominent conservative spokesperson defended slavery. I email you and tell you that you are mistaken, that Prager never defended slavery, and give you the link to his video in which he categorically denounces slavery as immoral. Rather than inform Wolff’s readers of this link, you provide links to other videos, one of which is narrated by an African-American woman who provides a detailed description of the history of slavery, accurately pointing out that both Blacks and Whites have engaged in slavery over the centuries; that slavery was prominently practiced by Arab cultures; that slavery is still occurring in African and Middle Eastern societies, and you somehow equate that with Prager defending slavery. Your deliberate misdirection is the kind of stunt which I see insurance defense attorneys use all of the time, to deflect attention from the actual issue. You then beg off claiming that, well, there was this other video that Susselman alluded to in which, technically, Prager did not defend slavery, but came pretty close. Your assertion is intellectually disingenuous. So, yes, I have unleashed my verbal vitriol on you, because you have engaged in libel, and are unapologetic for it. You are, I repeat, an academic fraud. I am so disappointed that I am no longer in your good graces.
********
The End.