 |
| |
|
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Yes, well if you choose to willfully ignore the rampant misbehavior of the United States in its direction of power, then you are indeed most responsible for any deaths that occur because of it. As such, not everyone who died on 9-11 were completely innocent of all charges - any advancement of US atrocities automatically bloodies your hand.
Fez, you are of course, free to disagree (unlike your fascist beliefs, I actually believe in free speech) however again, on this point he is completely justified in his beliefs.  |
Again this is irrelevant. The rampant misbehavior? What misbehavior? Again I don't agree. I also vehemently disagree with you on the 9/11 victims. I support the US war in Iraq but that does not make me a target. Additionally, this thread has moreso to do with the plagiarism committed by this professor. Additionally, it has to do with ethics. He is not completely justified in his beliefs, because america does no wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giancarlo
|
|
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Not in my eyes, no, but in the eyes of many people around the world it does. You support a war that has taken the lives of so many and plunged Iraq into far more instability than it was in previously, now bringing instability to the entire region (moreso than before)...And then details of American "misbehavior" (to put it *mildly*) in Iraq only fuels this sentiment. |
I don't care about other people who take issue with something that is nonexistent. It does not make it justified. And I support a war that liberated millions. Iraq is more better off then it was before. And there is no discussion to that. You will not discuss that point because it is indisputable. Actually this has brought a revolution of thought to the region. Again no, you are wrong. In fact you are hideously wrong.
quote:
Not by your beliefs, of course. However, I believe that bringing freedom and life are far more ethical than bringing despotism and death
Additionally, your support for the latter is what he is referencing to and, obviously what many people around the world (some of whom have taken up arms against the United States) take issue with |
No. I believe in freedom and life, more then you do. That's why I supported the war against Saddam. I support freedom. I support both social and economic freedom, so please stop BSing people about what I supposeably believe in. And many people support the US around the world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giancarlo
|
|
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Even pretending it is nonexistent (which is false, btw), its probably best to take some concern in it considering the little mess theyve trapped the American military in
|
The little mess? Again stop being delusional and making things up. We got elections to go forward didn't we? we made it possible.
quote:
Not so much....Instability, fear, collapse of infrastructure, on top of all the human lives that American imperialism has cost in the past ten years...It seems that the US cycle of blood will continue for the forseeable future |
Instability, fear and collapse of infrastructure was a fact during Saddam's regime. American imperialism? You are soooo delusional and so wrong. I will not respond to these repetitions of falsehoods, and little slanderous comments you make.
quote:
Really? I'm not seeing it, unless you mean a revolution in anti-American sentiment |
Idiotic thinking. There has been democratic revolution over the middle east... more and more countries are starting elections.
quote:
You supported the war against Iraq because your dear leader told you to, Fezzie.  Dear me, you are far more indoctrinated than even the most radical communist has ever been. |
And who is telling you to believe in what you do? Anti-war people.. who are far more delusional then Bush. Also no, I had my own reasons for supporting this war so again stop putting words in my mouth.
quote:
You support whatever the Party tells you to support - restrictions on freedoms in various nations caused by the United States tend to lend to this, and your support for various dictators (none of whom will be mentioned) also seems to indicate you are far less supportive of freedom than you seem to espouse.
But please, your attempts at deception are most amusing |
Again no I don't. In fact I'm not even registered as a republican voter. I'm registered as non-partisan. What dictators exactly? Try to name any. Please I'd like to hear this. And none of your bullshit accusations either... thanks. You are the one deceiving people here, and you are the one who is amusing.
quote:
But unfortunately they tend to be Americans. Infact, support AGAINST the US tends to be far higher in, well, nearly every region of the world.
Oh well |
Nope. Prove it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
I won't bother with the rest. Your responses have very little merit Might as well stick to the main point.
quote:
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. |
Nice misrepresentation. Unfortunately, that won't work.
My position is that the plagiarism charges are only getting any play because of the context. That seems obviously true - no one would care otherwise. More to the point these sorts of things are always brought up in an efffort to fire people with unpopular views (If I hadn't personally seen this happen half a dozen times before, I might actually believe you - but I know what I'm talking about, so I don't).
So the reality is: left wing academic under threat because of right wing campaign to oust him.
Your pleasure at Churchill getting fired, is simply childish. If he goes, for whatever reason - that's not just a "small modicum of satisfaction to people I hate", it's a big win to nutcases like David Horowitz who want to purge radicals from campus and institute an "academic bill of rights" which is code for restricting academic freedom. I don't really care about Churchill individually, but I care that this doesn't happen.
If Churchill goes, for whatever stated reason, the real reason will be that the right wing campaign worked. After all, the plagiarism accusations are only getting air because of the context. If he's fired over these charges, it won't be because of them, it will be because they are a convenient excuse. That is a fact.
If he does go, then it will send a chill through the academic community (which it has already to some degree) and will embolden the right to oust other professors with views they don't like. There probably isn't a professor on any campus who couldn't be accused of doing something wrong and fired or suspended if pressure is brought to bear. Like I said, I have seen it happen many times. This is 100% political - it has really nothing much to do with the plagiarism and everything to do with censoring people like Ward Churchill.
In the grand scheme of things, it would simply be better to let one guy get away with plagiarism (if he actually did it) than to suffer the consequences of a general anti-leftist witch hunt on campuses across the US. I don't particularly care for Churchill himself, as I've stated, and I would probably not shed a tear were he fired in other circumstances, but the fact is that this is not what's happening. Ward Churchill is a test case for the right wing loons who want to tamper with academic freedom.
I guess you are incapable of understanding what "the greater good" means. But then again you are so absorbed with yourself that I don't find that hard to believe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
And here's the reality of the "plagiarism" complaint:
quote:
On Tuesday, a Canadian university provided CU with an attorney's opinion on a 13-year- old publishing dispute involving Churchill. That attorney determined Churchill had published the work of one of the school's professors without adequate citation.
Dalhousie University of Nova Scotia spokesman Charles Crosby said CU officials contacted the school about whether Churchill misappropriated an essay by Dalhousie professor Fay G. Cohen for a 1992 book on Native Americans by Churchill's then-wife.
Cohen, in 1997, asked Dalhousie attorneys to determine whether Churchill took the essay without crediting her - and attorneys determined that he did.
Churchill had published Cohen's essay in 1991 in Copenhagen, Denmark, with her permission, and full credit. But in 1992, Churchill asked if he could publish it again, this time in North America in a collection being assembled by his then- wife. Cohen refused, and she says he published it anyway, without giving her credit, then threatened to "get her for this" when she objected, according to Crosby.
In the 1992 book, Cohen's essay is altered slightly in spots from the 1991 original, and the book says it was "prepared" by Churchill. Cohen is credited in endnotes and footnotes, but no true author is listed.
The similarities between Cohen's work and the article "prepared" by Churchill were published by historian John Lavelle in 1999, and never resulted in a lawsuit or university discipline. |
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0...2758694,00.html
See - it's not "plagiarism" as most people would think of it, and Churchill doesn't even claim authorship of the document (he claims to have "prepared" it, which is true). This is not a case of claiming that someone else's work is yours (plagiarism) but of using someone else's work without permission. That's bad, but it is not the academic offence that plagiarism is - it's more like a matter for a lawsuit than an academic offence tribunal.
See how badly you are a stooge for the right, Boris.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
And here's Churchill's response to the initial allegations. Note that Fez, like many right wingers calls him "pro-terrorist". In fact he is no such thing.
And most of what he says below is true.
quote:
Text of Churchill statement
By DenverPost.com
Here is the text of a statement distributed to the media Monday on behalf of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Spelling and punctuation have been left unaltered.
Press Release - Ward Churchill January 31, 2005
In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.
Advertisement
Click Here!
* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.
* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."
* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government."
* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.
* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.
* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.
* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.
* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country. |
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0...2686093,00.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
I don't really care about Ward anymore. I had my fun in my thread about him. However, he really should be fired for his academic sins stealing essays and regularly invoking Godwin being chief among them.
One of the highlights of said thread: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...3515975,00.html
Last edited by DinoDoc on 12-03-2005 at 22:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
My position is that the plagiarism charges are only getting any play because of the context. That seems obviously true - no one would care otherwise. |
I have no doubt the only reason the charges are in the media are due to his notoriety. I made that point explicitely. I also pointed out that the plagiarism charge itself stems from before he was so famous. How is that hard for you understand?
quote:
More to the point these sorts of things are always brought up in an efffort to fire people with unpopular views (If I hadn't personally seen this happen half a dozen times before, I might actually believe you - but I know what I'm talking about, so I don't). |
Right, always. Sure. I'm sure never in the history of the world has a legitimate plagiarism charge in academia been brought forth. Nope, never. 
quote:
So the reality is: left wing academic under threat because of right wing campaign to oust him. |
I've still yet to see any substantiation that woman accusing him is part of some "right wing campaign." Do enlighten us, but not with any more bald-ass assumptions on your part, mkay?
quote:
Your pleasure at Churchill getting fired, is simply childish. |
I've seen you take pleasure in the misfortune of those you oppose politically all the time. You're such a smarmy hypocrite.
I don't hope Churchill dies or anything, I just would love to see him get what's coming to him. If he's guilty of the charges, then he's got a firing coming to him, end of story.
quote:
If he goes, for whatever reason - that's not just a "small modicum of satisfaction to people I hate", it's a big win to nutcases like David Horowitz who want to purge radicals from campus and institute an "academic bill of rights" which is code for restricting academic freedom. I don't really care about Churchill individually, but I care that this doesn't happen. |
Oh yawn. So people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions because you see a slipperly slope into some sort of Orwellian hell, despite the fact you have produced any evidence whatsoever that the specific charges stem from any right-wing source. I'll ask again--if Churchill was to be accused of rape, would you advocate he not be punished for it, just because it might make some righties happy?
quote:
If Churchill goes, for whatever stated reason, the real reason will be that the right wing campaign worked. After all, the plagiarism accusations are only getting air because of the context. If he's fired over these charges, it won't be because of them, it will be because they are a convenient excuse. That is a fact. |
No, if Churchill goes, it will be because the campus had some integrity and they upheld the notion that people should be held accountable for their actions. Apparently you don't see what that's important, but I certainly do.
quote:
If he does go, then it will send a chill through the academic community (which it has already to some degree) and will embolden the right to oust other professors with views they don't like. There probably isn't a professor on any campus who couldn't be accused of doing something wrong and fired or suspended if pressure is brought to bear. Like I said, I have seen it happen many times. This is 100% political - it has really nothing much to do with the plagiarism and everything to do with censoring people like Ward Churchill. |
In reality, it's people like you defending Churchill in this instance that create the real damage to the left. By giving him a special pass, you just fall into right-wing hands where they can accuse you (justly) of advocating a double standard and not having any concern for integrity or honesty. If Churchill did the crime, he has to be punished, as simple as that. Advocating otherwise is irresponsible. Your fantasy scenario of this leading to some sort of chill is just that--fantasy. Most academics and see the difference between defending someone's first ammendment rights and defending someone's unethical/possibly criminal behavior.
quote:
I guess you are incapable of understanding what "the greater good" means. But then again you are so absorbed with yourself that I don't find that hard to believe. |
The last sentence is priceless, especially coming from you. A blatant ad hominem!
But I do indeed understand the greater good--it's you who don't seem to get it. If academia isn't held to ethical standards, then everything the right has done to trash it will be vindicated. They can turn to the public and say, "see how corrupt the left is?" I'm surprised you'd be so dumb as to play into their hands this way--your response is exactly what the right wants. They can just point at you and show everyone how looney we leftists are!
quote:
See - it's not "plagiarism" as most people would think of it, and Churchill doesn't even claim authorship of the document (he claims to have "prepared" it, which is true). This is not a case of claiming that someone else's work is yours (plagiarism) but of using someone else's work without permission. That's bad, but it is not the academic offence that plagiarism is - it's more like a matter for a lawsuit than an academic offence tribunal.
See how badly you are a stooge for the right, Boris. |
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Last time I checked, using the work of another when they didn't permit it (and in this case, explicitley forbade it) was still a major no-no. I'd think you'd be able to grasp that concept from the thread about the gay couple's photo being used in the anti-AARP advertisement. That you'd dismiss this as so minor it just further proof that you have no concern for integrity.
Furthermore, this just vindicates my position that Churchill is a royal *******. That is hardly a flattering depiction of your hero--it shows he was a royal jerk, and he did what he did with malice and forethought. At least if it were "traditional" plagiarism, he could defend himself on the grounds that he inadvertently copied material. Here we see he did it deliberately. Thanks for proving my point so well 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I have no doubt the only reason the charges are in the media are due to his notoriety. I made that point explicitely. I also pointed out that the plagiarism charge itself stems from before he was so famous. How is that hard for you understand? |
You'll have to do better than that. Why don't you try reading for a change?
quote:
Right, always. Sure. I'm sure never in the history of the world has a legitimate plagiarism charge in academia been brought forth. Nope, never. |
That's not what I said, so how about trying a worthwhile argument for a change.
quote:
I've still yet to see any substantiation that woman accusing him is part of some "right wing campaign." Do enlighten us, but not with any more bald-ass assumptions on your part, mkay? |
Again, that's not true either. Don't attribute beliefs to me that I don't hold to bolster your feeble argument. As I understand it that woman is not connected with the rightist loons, but they are the ones making a big deal out of it.
quote:
I've seen you take pleasure in the misfortune of those you oppose politically all the time. You're such a smarmy hypocrite. |
I'm not the smarmy one here.
quote:
Oh yawn. So people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions because you see a slipperly slope into some sort of Orwellian hell, despite the fact you have produced any evidence whatsoever that the specific charges stem from any right-wing source. I'll ask again--if Churchill was to be accused of rape, would you advocate he not be punished for it, just because it might make some righties happy? |
Why don't you actually respond to my argument instead of some bullshit reconstruction of it that you have invented.
If you can't see the difference between rape and plagiarism, then you have a problem.
In the scheme of things it would be better overall if Churchill were left alone, to stop right wing nuts increasing their campaign to suppress views they don't like. Academic freedom matters more than one case of purported plagiarism.
quote:
No, if Churchill goes, it will be because the campus had some integrity and they upheld the notion that people should be held accountable for their actions. Apparently you don't see what that's important, but I certainly do. |
Yeah yeah... they want him out because it's causing them political trouble. I've seen this happen so many times before. Jesus, you can concoct any story like this about almost any professor who's been around for long enough - I've seen it done before.
quote:
in reality, it's people like you defending Churchill in this instance that create the real damage to the left. By giving him a special pass, you just fall into right-wing hands where they can accuse you (justly) of advocating a double standard and not having any concern for integrity or honesty. |
There's no double standard in wishing for the lesser of two evils. We teach this in our introductory classes. I guess you weren't bright enough to pick up the difference.
quote:
If Churchill did the crime, he has to be punished, as simple as that. Advocating otherwise is irresponsible. Your fantasy scenario of this leading to some sort of chill is just that--fantasy. |
Prove it.
There's already a political campaign to mandate "conservative" views on campus, and it has plenty of supporters. I don't want to see it get any further.
quote:
Most academics and see the difference between defending someone's first ammendment rights and defending someone's unethical/possibly criminal behavior. |
As I said, ignore the context; ignore the consequences, and we have your daft view. Please try harder.
quote:
But I do indeed understand the greater good--it's you who don't seem to get it. If academia isn't held to ethical standards, then everything the right has done to trash it will be vindicated. They can turn to the public and say, "see how corrupt the left is?" |
Oh baloney. If he gets fired, it will be worse than if he didn't.
quote:
I'm surprised you'd be so dumb as to play into their hands this way--your response is exactly what the right wants. They can just point at you and show everyone how looney we leftists are! |
I'd rather be me than someone whose politics is based on his personal narcissicism. If gays weren't oppressed in our society, you'd be just another tired old conservative. At least my politics aren't based purely on selfishness.
quote:
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Last time I checked, using the work of another when they didn't permit it (and in this case, explicitley forbade it) was still a major no-no. |
It's a no-no, but it isn't plagiarism. I deal with plagiarism cases all the time and I simply know better than you do.
Plagiarism is a big deal because it undermines the purpose of producing original scholarship. Printing someone else's piece while not claiming that it is your own is a much lesser matter.
In fact this is a case for a lawsuit and some kind of academic sanction, but it isn't plagiarism, and it probably isn't a firing offence based on my experience. Churchill did not present the work as his own, and he'd published it before under the author's name.
This is a minor spat in academic circles.
Besides.. we really don't know what the truth is yet. And as I've said, charges like these are pretty easy to cook up when you want to get rid of someone for political reasons.
quote:
I'd think you'd be able to grasp that concept from the thread about the gay couple's photo being used in the anti-AARP advertisement. That you'd dismiss this as so minor it just further proof that you have no concern for integrity. |
It's not a matter of plagiarism. It's not even mildly defamatory as your case is. This charge is being used to undermine Churchill's credibility as a scholar by right wing clowns. It's not even clear yet that any wrongdoing occurred.
But nice of you to join in the witch hunt all the same.
quote:
Furthermore, this just vindicates my position that Churchill is a royal *******. That is hardly a flattering depiction of your hero--it shows he was a royal jerk, and he did what he did with malice and forethought. At least if it were "traditional" plagiarism, he could defend himself on the grounds that he inadvertently copied material. Here we see he did it deliberately. Thanks for proving my point so well |
I never said he was my hero. I don't like the guy. I merely said I'd rather not see him get fired and hand the right a whipping boy to further their cause.
You really need to do better. Your arguments are poor and based on straw men or attack positions I did not claim. Why not try reading my actual argument before posting irrelevancies.
Perhaps you should go back to school and learn how to do it properly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
You'll have to do better than that. Why don't you try reading for a change? |
That's not an argument, just another cop out on your part.
quote:
quote:
Right, always. Sure. I'm sure never in the history of the world has a legitimate plagiarism charge in academia been brought forth. Nope, never. |
That's not what I said, so how about trying a worthwhile argument for a change. |
An evasion, and a cop out. You explicitely said these things "always" came to light under such circumstances.
Hey, when Doris Kearns had those plagiarism accusations against her 2 years ago, was that part of some right-wing cabal's efforts to discredit her?
quote:
Again, that's not true either. Don't attribute beliefs to me that I don't hold to bolster your feeble argument. As I understand it that woman is not connected with the rightist loons, but they are the ones making a big deal out of it. |
If you think that the charges against Churchill are part of the right-wing conspiracy against him, I can only assume you think the one who is actually charging him is part of the conspiracy against him. After all, would you be dumb enough to conflate someone you knew wasn't involved with said conspiracy with those who are? Oops, looks like you are!
quote:
I'm not the smarmy one here. |
I know you are, but what am I?
quote:
Why don't you actually respond to my argument instead of some bullshit reconstruction of it that you have invented. |
Another cop out. I notice this trend in you--when stymied for an argument, you just retreat to hand-waving dismissals.
quote:
If you can't see the difference between rape and plagiarism, then you have a problem. |
Quite rich from the person who tried to equate the right-wing hatred of Churchill with two guys beating a young man to death.
quote:
In the scheme of things it would be better overall if Churchill were left alone, to stop right wing nuts increasing their campaign to suppress views they don't like. Academic freedom matters more than one case of purported plagiarism. |
And yet you've utterly failed to substantiate how letting a plagiarism case slide would support such academic freedom. You've just engaged in a slipperly-slope fantasy.
quote:
Yeah yeah... they want him out because it's causing them political trouble. I've seen this happen so many times before. Jesus, you can concoct any story like this about almost any professor who's been around for long enough - I've seen it done before. |
So why did they refuse to fire him after all the other complaints about him? You do know that he's been accused of plagiarism before, right?
You seem to be (again) missing the crucial point here--I don't want Churchill to be fired if he's done nothing wrong. But if he has, then he deserves to be fired, simple as that.
quote:
There's no double standard in wishing for the lesser of two evils. We teach this in our introductory classes. I guess you weren't bright enough to pick up the difference. |
I shudder for the futures of your students.
It is indeed a double standard when you constantly sit here on Apolyton and rail at the unethical behavior of conservatives, only to tolerate such behavior when it is by someone with which you have political sympathies. I point again to your utter lack of integrity on this issue.
Wait, you've been proferring a Chicken Little, doomsday scenario here that the firing of Churchill--even if it is meritted--will result in a long, dark winter for academia...but you've not offered any proof! So why can't I engage in my own fantasy scenarios? Hypocrisy yet again.
quote:
There's already a political campaign to mandate "conservative" views on campus, and it has plenty of supporters. I don't want to see it get any further. |
Indeed. But firing one professor if he has done something to merit being fired has nothing to do with that campaign. As I said, failing to do so will just give that campaign fuel. I can't believe you'd be so stupid not to see that.
quote:
As I said, ignore the context; ignore the consequences, and we have your daft view. Please try harder. |
Your consequences are fantasy, your context specious. Why don't you try harder to see why someone who commits academic fraud should be called on it?
quote:
Oh baloney. If he gets fired, it will be worse than if he didn't. |
Prove it! 
quote:
I'd rather be me than someone whose politics is based on his personal narcissicism. If gays weren't oppressed in our society, you'd be just another tired old conservative. At least my politics aren't based purely on selfishness. |
Oh please. I was a liberal long before I was ever cognizant of my identity as a gay person. And considering I have a pretty staunchly liberal viewpoint on issues entirely unrelated to homosexuality, this is just your usual bit of hot air. I thought philosophy would teach you to argue better than this, right?
I would at least hope it would teach you a lesson about being such a fringe lunatic for your side that you end up alienating everyone who isn't quite as fringe lunatic as you are. But at least we see how far your professed "liberalness" takes you--it certainly doesn't go into any real tolerance of gays. You're quite quick with the homophobia when it suits your needs. Arguing with a gay person? Throw out a bunch if irrelevant analogies to situations that involved a gay person, and then accuse them of selfishness! Way to win people to your cause there, kiddo!
quote:
It's a no-no, but it isn't plagiarism. I deal with plagiarism cases all the time and I simply know better than you do. |
Surprisingly, Fezzie seems to have already handled this. And I love the arrogant argument from authority!
I don't care if you call it "plagiarism" or not--the fact is that he published something, without any citation, that he was explicitley forbidden from publishing. Any university would have stern repercussions for faculty who did such a thing.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out other instances in which Mr. Churchill has been dishonest and possibly plagiarized:
http://hal.lamar.edu/~BROWNTF/Churchill1.htm
"Situating Churchill’s rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, one must reluctantly conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them."
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...3540066,00.html
Note the bottom quotations. Seems to me he is a serial plagiarist who is finally getting caught. How could you possibly not want to see such an ******* get canned? 
quote:
Besides.. we really don't know what the truth is yet. And as I've said, charges like these are pretty easy to cook up when you want to get rid of someone for political reasons. |
Funny how I said just this and you ignore so you can engage in ad hominems. For the upteenth time, I'll repeat--I only advocate his firing IF he's done something that merits being fired. Happy now?
quote:
It's not a matter of plagiarism. It's not even mildly defamatory as your case is. This charge is being used to undermine Churchill's credibility as a scholar by right wing clowns. It's not even clear yet that any wrongdoing occurred.
But nice of you to join in the witch hunt all the same. |
How could you possibly assert that his using a passage he was explicitley forbidden from using isn't clearly wrongdoing? Good lord!
Churchill has done plenty to undermine his own credibility as a scholar. The fact that you cling to him so pathetically just undermines your own integrity. Look into the truth of his claims to be a Native American and tell me more about his credibility.
For a philosophy "teacher," you seem to have trouble with some really simple concepts. The first being that people who commit wrongdoing should be punished for them.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 14-03-2005 at 11:43
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2005 13:51
|