 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
Sure, but I can think of ten professors at my university who fit the same description. That's no reason to fire them. He's not being hassled because he's an *******, he's being pursued because he said things that people disagree with. |
I'm not saying he should be fired for being an *******, I'm saying I'll enjoy seeing him fired because he's an *******. He should be fired for committing plagiarism.
quote:
You could probably fire any academic for plagiarism if you tried hard enough and there was enough political will to fire them. It tends not to be an all or nothing matter and ideas are hard to pin down. |
But the plagiarism charge stems from 1997, well before Churchill inspired a "witch hunt," and was validated by an investigation.
quote: Who knows if he is guilty. But you're being an absolute sap if you ignore the contex, which is a bunch of knuckle dragging right wing cretins trying to set a precedent by getting someone with opinions they don't like ostracised and fired. |
Again, whatever the right-wing cretins want is irrelevant to me. I don't think a plagiarist should be defended reflexively just because it might please right-wingers to see him in trouble.
Churchill is an ass and now, it appears, a confirmed plagiarist. If the university wants to have any claim to integrity, it should fire him if the charges have merit. How about setting a precedent of not punishing people who commit plagiarism? I find that prospect rather disgusting.
quote: What next? If it comes to light that Mathew Shepard was a despicable person who kicked small dogs and stole from old ladies, can we count on you to change your tune about his attackers? |
And this is a relevant analogy...how? People who do illegal things that hurt others (be it physically attacking them or plagiarizing their work) deserve to be punished for it. Whether or not Shepard was "despicable" is irrelevant to the fact that two people beat and murdered him. God, what a ludicrous comparison!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002 time: 00:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm not saying he should be fired for being an *******, I'm saying I'll enjoy seeing him fired because he's an *******. He should be fired for committing plagiarism. |
If he actually did it. But then again, with all the crap that has been printed about him, it's unlikely to be a clear cut case.
And you are missing the point. If Churchill gets fired for anything (even now they are negotiating a settlement between him and CU which is bad enough) the rest of us lose, because it will have been shown that professors with views that right wing loons don't like are vulnerable and the pressure groups will redouble their efforts.
quote: But the plagiarism charge stems from 1997, well before Churchill inspired a "witch hunt," and was validated by an investigation. |
Whose investigation? How serious was it. If it's like most of these things it probably isn't clear cut and is a matter for the disciplinary commission.
quote: Again, whatever the right-wing cretins want is irrelevant to me. I don't think a plagiarist should be defended reflexively just because it might please right-wingers to see him in trouble. |
You have to be pretty dumb to ignore the context and what it will do to everyone else if these bastards get their way.
In fact it seems obvious that you are that dumb. You can't separate events from their context and pretend it doesn't exist.
quote: Churchill is an ass and now, it appears, a confirmed plagiarist. If the university wants to have any claim to integrity, it should fire him if the charges have merit. |
He would have already been fired if they had. Now the whole process will be so hopelessly tainted by the current mess that there's just no possibilty of a fair outcome.
quote: And this is a relevant analogy...how? People who do illegal things that hurt others (be it physically attacking them or plagiarizing their work) deserve to be punished for it. Whether or not Shepard was "despicable" is irrelevant to the fact that two people beat and murdered him. God, what a ludicrous comparison! |
No it's actually pretty good. You seem quite prepared to let a right wing witch hunt succeed because it is now operating under another guise, when the plain fact is that they want to get him, not because he's a plagiarist but because he says things they don't like.
It's exactly the same as some gay bashers claiming that they beat the crap out of a guy because he stole their car or something. Maybe he did, but that's not why they did it - they did it because he was gay and anyone who doesn't object to the beating on those grounds is just the stooge of the anti-gay movement.
Ward Churchill isn't being persecuted because he's a plagiarist, he's being persecuted because of right wing political pressure and a win on any count would be terribly damaging to the other "Ward Churchills" who aren't plagiarists or *******s, but hold similar views.
Ignore that, and you ignore the whole point of the Churchill affair.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
If he actually did it. But then again, with all the crap that has been printed about him, it's unlikely to be a clear cut case. |
Of course it's "if he actually did it." I never said otherwise. I don't think he should be fired if he didn't do it. But the point is, if he did do it, he deserves to be fired, and I will revel in it because he's an *******.
quote:
And you are missing the point. If Churchill gets fired for anything (even now they are negotiating a settlement between him and CU which is bad enough) the rest of us lose, because it will have been shown that professors with views that right wing loons don't like are vulnerable and the pressure groups will redouble their efforts. |
No, it will show that people who plagiarize will get punished for doing so. How could you possibly hope someone who plagiarized would get away with it? Are you so blinded by your lunatic fringe ideology that you think people who share your views are entitled to special status above the law?
quote:
quote: But the plagiarism charge stems from 1997, well before Churchill inspired a "witch hunt," and was validated by an investigation. |
Whose investigation? How serious was it. If it's like most of these things it probably isn't clear cut and is a matter for the disciplinary commission. |
It's in the article, dufus. Why don't you read it?
quote: You have to be pretty dumb to ignore the context and what it will do to everyone else if these bastards get their way.
In fact it seems obvious that you are that dumb. You can't separate events from their context and pretend it doesn't exist. |
Oh please. Show me how the plagiarism charge is in any way related to this right-wing attacks. As I said before, the charges first surfaced in 1997, well before Churchill was such a public figure. And is the person accusing him of plagiarism a right-wing lunatic? No, she's a fellow leftist academic. Yeah, there's a conspiracy for you.
I'm not the one being dumb here. If you're dumb enough to let your bias control your thinking so that when it comes to someone committing plagiarism, you'd excuse it just so some people won't be happy in Churchill's downfall, then I suppose it speaks a lot also of your integrity. 
quote: He would have already been fired if they had. Now the whole process will be so hopelessly tainted by the current mess that there's just no possibilty of a fair outcome. |
Did you read the article? The charges weren't pursued by the original author. So they wouldn't have yet had any grounds to fire him. 
quote: No it's actually pretty good. You seem quite prepared to let a right wing witch hunt succeed because it is now operating under another guise, when the plain fact is that they want to get him, not because he's a plagiarist but because he says things they don't like. |
Again, you seem to be making stuff up out of thin air. The accuser in this case isn't part of a right-wing cabal, she's just another author whose work allegedly Churchill stole. Why shouldn't her complaint get legitimate attention just because you don't like the fact that it might please people who don't like Churchill? You really don't care about integrity, do you?
quote: It's exactly the same as some gay bashers claiming that they beat the crap out of a guy because he stole their car or something. Maybe he did, but that's not why they did it - they did it because he was gay and anyone who doesn't object to the beating on those grounds is just the stooge of the anti-gay movement. |
This is the most ludicrous stretch I've seen. You could give Fez a run for his money.
Did I mention that the allegations aren't coming from the right-wing yet? Oh right, I did...
I do find it amusing that every time you have a disagreement with a gay poster, you throw up some argument like this, seeking to paste the gay person as a "hypocrite" under an assumption we would have different standards for gay people. Hey guess what--if Churchill was gay, I wouldn't think any different of him. How about that?
quote: Ward Churchill isn't being persecuted because he's a plagiarist, he's being persecuted because of right wing political pressure and a win on any count would be terribly damaging to the other "Ward Churchills" who aren't plagiarists or *******s, but hold similar views.
Ignore that, and you ignore the whole point of the Churchill affair. |
I don't doubt that. I've defended Churchill's right to express his repugnant views before. But that's irrelevant to this issue. Just because he has been targeted by right-wing whackos doesn't give him a free pass to commit plagiarism, nor any other crime.
If he were shown to have committed rape, would you want him left alone because convicting him would make the right-wing happy? That seems to be your silly line of reasoning--you don't care what he may have done, just let him get away with it so long as the right-wing doesn't get to see him punished?
So, let's see what's the more reasonable position:
Me: If Churchill's guilty of the charges, he should be fired. Since he's a pompous ******* who says repugnant things, I'll enjoy it if that happens.
You: Who cares if Churchill committed a crime or not? He should be given carte blanche to do as he likes because actually enforcing the law would give a small modicum of satisfaction to people I hate.
Looks to me like your position is not only the dumb one, it's downright malicious.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|