Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: The P.C. police strike again [Re: Tao]
    #3827147 - 02/24/05 11:32 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)


Educational institutions go beyond what is simply a 'business', especially when they are state universities. State universities should absolutely not have the right to fire a professor over a politically unpopular statement.

I am a free-marketer. I think organizations should be able to hire or fire anybody that they want to within reason.

Also, state universities are somewhat beholden to the taxpayers of that state. The taxpayers of the state and the representatives of that state have every right to put pressure on the school if they want to. If it was a private university that was receiving no public funds, then that would be different.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: The P.C. police strike again [Re: Vvellum]
    #3828093 - 02/24/05 03:08 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

bi0 said:
Colleges such as the University of Colorado cannot legally fire someone for expressing themselves in writing. Even employees have 1st Amendment rights. The Board would expect a lawsuit and would most likely lose the case.




Jesus fucking christ, how stupid can people be? The first amendmant gives you the RIGHT to say what you want. It doesn't give you carte blanche protection from it. If I go into work screaming about how Jews are evil hooknosed shape shifting reptiles, they don't have to say "Golly willickers, it's his 1st amendmant right, and that supercedes the right of me to employ who I want to and to have reasonable expectations from these people."
Quote:


Professors can be fired for such things as dereliction of duty and sexual harrassment and being convicted for felony acts, but a professor (and especially a tenured professor as Churchill), cannot be fired for expressing ideas.




Maybe you could show me that Constitutional amendmant. Or show me where the 1st guarantees that you keep your job because of it.


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: The P.C. police strike again [Re: SoopaX]
    #3828811 - 02/24/05 05:57 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

How about for lying on their resume and job application?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: The P.C. police strike again [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3829539 - 02/24/05 07:51 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Of course they should be fired for that. Were you trying to reply to another person?


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 5 months, 10 days
Re: The P.C. police strike again [Re: SoopaX]
    #3830724 - 02/24/05 10:34 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Jesus fucking christ, how stupid can people be? The first amendmant gives you the RIGHT to say what you want. It doesn't give you carte blanche protection from it. If I go into work screaming about how Jews are evil hooknosed shape shifting reptiles, they don't have to say "Golly willickers, it's his 1st amendmant right, and that supercedes the right of me to employ who I want to and to have reasonable expectations from these people."




True, however if you were to say these things when you are not at work or not at a work-related function, there would be no grounds to dismiss you.

It'd be like requiring employees to put a certain political party's bumper sticker on your car, or requiring you to remove a certain political party's bumper sticker from your car. No, your employer cannot dictate your personal views.. that does not give you the right to express them while you are being payed by them or while you are on their dime, but when you get home it's open season.


Now.. the Whacko with the Nazis? He wasn't speculating, he was making a statement he believed true.
And before you even consider anything else, the #1 rule of debate is the first side who pulls the "Nazi" card loses.. as they're quite obviously only trying to pull emotional strings and go for the shock factor.

Summers? The way I see this, he was making a hypothesis that the reason there are fewer women scientists may be due to some innate difference between men and women.

From the article:
Quote:

Other female scientists also criticized the speech, in which Summers laid out a series of possible explanations for the underrepresentation of women in the upper echelons of professional life, including upbringing, genetics and time spent on child-rearing.




So, what he is saying is that generally, fewer women may be driven to pursue high-level professional positions because of differences in upbringing -- boys and girls being raised differently by parents -- because of genetics, and because of time spent on child-rearing.

Obviously this is not universal, since there are SOME women in the upper echelons of professional life.

Some women raise children. That reduces the total number of women available to attain such positions. Nothing wrong with that comment, it's not ALL women, but it is a factor that may prevent SOME women from pursuing advancement.

That aise, he mentions upbringing and genetics -- nuture/nature.

That's what makes us who we are.

He is suggesting that the reason women seem underrepresented may be due to, not discrimination, but instead a lesser interest in such things among women on a whole. Not individually, but taken as a whole.

Noting sexist about that.

Those who are offended believe that there are just as many women trying to climb the ladder as there are men, and that the reason fewer women make it to the top MUST then be because men keep reaching over and pulling them down.

Summers suggested that perhaps the reason is that, for some reason he is not sure of (but to which he offered the normal and obvious ones, nuture/nature, and the fact that women carry babies), as to why there would be fewer women at the top of the ladder.

It seems he thinks there are simply fewer of them interested in reaching the top of the ladder, or perhaps fewer getting on the ladder at all.

He's not saying they are on a whole unfit to be at the top, nor is he saying they are dumb.
He's saying there may be fewer women scientists not because they're too stupid to become scientists, but because fewer women may desire to become scientists in the first place.


That is in no way equitable to stating that the civilians killed on 9/11 were guilty parties because your skewed logic led you to believe that stock trading is somehow the same thing as knowingly expiditing and streamlining the murder of millions.

The former is a rational line of thought that, while debatable, was not presented as the end-all of truth but rather as a hypothesis to be investigated, an alternative to those who see fewer women scientists and immediately believe that the reason for it is that women are held back and discriminated against, posited in the spirit of debate to try and discern the true reason for a differening number of men and women considered elite scientists.. rather than simply write the difference off as being due to discrimination.

The latter? Deranged, it was presented as undeniable truth, no room for debate. Further, Churchill's idea was total and utter bullshit.

If you extend Churchill's thoughts further than just the victims of 9/11 and place guilt at the door of everyone eligble under his definition of guild..

well, look at this.

the terrorists themselves are little Eichmanns -- by doing SOMETHING in SOME country with oil, which blah blah blah was used by OUR country to do something to someone somewhere else.

Ludicrous and stupid, the alleged doctor's little speech was only half-baked. But then, it wasn't something he came up with to prove a point, I believe.. I believe its sole purpose was to stir up anger in others so that he may pick at them and feel superiour. Which, I'm sure, it accomplished, and hopefully he felt good about it, because such small men can hardly find satisfaction often in life.


--------------------
i finally got around to making a sig
revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might
grar.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: The P.C. police strike again [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #3830814 - 02/24/05 10:47 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Whoever pulls the Nazi card loses when they do it simply to try to paint their opponent in a bad light or try to just stir up emotions, but the professor had a legitimate analogy and was trying to show with evidence his belief that the people in the World Trade Centers were to the US like the German workers were to the Nazis, so I believe that he didn't just pull the "Nazi card" so much as stating an analogy to help clarify his position.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 5 months, 10 days
Re: The P.C. police strike again [Re: Ravus]
    #3832062 - 02/25/05 08:03 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

True, however his position was completely idiotic if you try to actually apply it.

His stance was that because these people made money, and were Americans, and America does bad things, and bad things require money to do.. that they were guilty of those bad things.

I mean, seriously. That's fucking stupid.

Follow the money.. it's kinda like Six Degrees of Seperation, except I'd be willing to bet that you could connect most of the world to money the US has spent on things that brought about the wrath of the terrorists in far fewer than 6 steps.

Basically? Jerkwad's idea was that they were guilty because the government profited on money they made, through taxes. Well, the government recieves tax from MANY sources. Any company that pays a wage or sells a product inside the United States is taxed -- and, therefor, according to this definition, guilty.

Now.. don't you think that includes an awful lot of people?

Hey, know what? Those countries the terrorists are from.. don't most of them sell oil to us? Maybe not much, but.. well, boy howdy, there's money to the US Gov't. Are they little Eichmanns as well?


Churchill's an idiot, who accused the victims of being little Eichmanns not to draw any real connect to them but rather to incite interest -- interest of any kind -- in what he was saying. If you actually look at his position you see that there are millions upon millions of people, many not living within the boarders of the United States, that would be every bit as guilty as the victims of 9/11.. and many moreso.

It was a half-baked idea to pull emotional strings, coming from a professor who's not a doctor of anything. I've spent more time thinking about what to eat for dinner than he spent thinking about what he was saying.


--------------------
i finally got around to making a sig
revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might
grar.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTurnpikeGates
newbie
Registered: 11/03/03
Posts: 44
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: The P.C. police strike again [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #3832291 - 02/25/05 09:31 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Your simplification of his stance is disingenuous. Churchill was talking about a specific class (you read it, you know he said "technocrats"). He wasn't talking about "people who make money."

This logically follows from an anti-capitalist political premise. The monied classes are essentially as responsible for military/diplomatic actions (read: sanctions in Iraq, supporting Israel, hostility to Arab nations in general) as the government itself. So to follow the analogy, Eichmann represents the monied/industrialist/technocrat class, those who finance oppression. Those classes existed in Nazi Germany the same way they exist in the U.S., according to that political premise. So, if you disagree with Churchill's assertion, you're really just disagreeing with the anti-capitalist, anti-interventionist political stance in general. You can find inconsistencies and absurdities in the analogy, but it's obvious that Churchill meant it in a very general way, and anyway who misses that point is nitpicking in the "PC" fashion.

For some reason people want to ignore Churchill's critique and instead harp on one sloppy metaphor. The type of liberal PC bullshit that conservatives whine about all day long.

Churchill is basically saying that nations/people that are victimized by powerful states that they can't possibly contend with have no recourse but terrorism. His contention that the "technocrats" in the WTC are not innocent is up for debate. Whether he in any way endorsed their death is not.

If you don't understand his point that the WTC attack was essentially a military action with civilian casualties, then you should re-read his article. And guess what, it's cool to disagree with that, but that contention has nothing to with whether he supported the attacks.

As regards his position at the University. If professors don't have relative job security, intellectual progress will be handicapped severely. Professors being selected or released for their opinions is the type of shit the right wing is currently complaining about with this whole "liberal bias in universities" witchhunt.

It's odd how the right can consistently have double standards with a straight face.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: The P.C. police strike again [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #3833489 - 02/25/05 02:59 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Mushmonkey said:
True, however if you were to say these things when you are not at work or not at a work-related function, there would be no grounds to dismiss you.




Sure their would. A private company can fire you whenever you want for whatever they want.
Quote:


It'd be like requiring employees to put a certain political party's bumper sticker on your car, or requiring you to remove a certain political party's bumper sticker from your car. No, your employer cannot dictate your personal views.. that does not give you the right to express them while you are being payed by them or while you are on their dime, but when you get home it's open season.




Show me where the Constitution gives you a guarantee of a job. If you are in a contracted position, then that contract might give you certain rights, but even then I'm sure you could be fired if they really wanted you to. I could show you lots of cases of "Nazi" types being fired for their beliefs, even if they only spoke of their beliefs out of work.
Quote:


Now.. the Whacko with the Nazis? He wasn't speculating, he was making a statement he believed true.




So?
Quote:


Summers? The way I see this, he was making a hypothesis that the reason there are fewer women scientists may be due to some innate difference between men and women.




You don't think that their are?
Quote:


Obviously this is not universal, since there are SOME women in the upper echelons of professional life.




Eighteen of the nineteen professors in the chemistry department at my college, including the department head, are females.
Quote:


Ludicrous and stupid, the alleged doctor's little speech was only half-baked. But then, it wasn't something he came up with to prove a point, I believe.. I believe its sole purpose was to stir up anger in others so that he may pick at them and feel superiour. Which, I'm sure, it accomplished, and hopefully he felt good about it, because such small men can hardly find satisfaction often in life.



I think that this fuck-ass is so happy he's getting this attention. I really pray that someone who's father was killed on 9/11 goes and find this guy and pops two in the back of his head.


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Ward Churchill: Troops should Kill Officers.
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 1,921 32 07/04/05 04:55 PM
by Le_Canard
* Professor Refuses Apology for 9/11 Essay RandalFlagg 1,020 8 02/06/05 07:23 PM
by zappaisgod
* Professor says Bush revealed National Guard favoritism fft2 703 8 09/15/04 03:55 PM
by Divided_Sky
* Former professor: Bush not qualified for President
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Zahid 3,932 80 07/28/04 08:30 PM
by Phred
* poll ..US nuclear first strike... Annapurna1 1,284 16 07/28/06 08:44 AM
by mack_tasticlies
* Affimative Action and the Univ. of Mich.
( 1 2 all )
Innvertigo 2,979 24 01/20/03 11:21 AM
by Dilauded
* Insurgents Target Iraqi Police; 59 Dead
( 1 2 3 4 all )
RandalFlagg 4,453 62 09/16/04 04:37 PM
by Zahid
* General Strike Set in Iran In Bid To Topple Mullahs wingnutx 1,079 18 06/14/03 05:02 PM
by hongomon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,167 topic views. 2 members, 8 guests and 29 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.