Weirddave wrote:
Thank you.
Absolutely. I was responding to what I thought was Monty saying that he should apologize for his views themselves, not for his unprofessional response. Based on Monty’s subsequent comment to me, I guess I was mistaken.
Spavined Gelding, Professor Kryten is an idiot for not realizing what he owes to the military. In the countries for which he apparently has sympathy, you can’t say the kind of things he said, even in a polite, diplomatic tone, much less with his hysterical rudeness. Just a little while ago, Iraq had an election where people had the choice of voting for Hussein or kissing their ass goodbye. And he thinks our military is corrupt?
Don’t give me that jazz about how he was supposedly just exercising his right to free speech, and other people should not be upset by what he did say. He’s been reprimanded and may face academic discipline: that’s the worst that has happened to him, or will happen. How can he not appreciate the fact that he has not been arrested and charged with treason, and recognize that that is so because our miltary is not like theirs?
You then went on to say:
**
You may not care, but his employers do. It’s been said elsewhere in the thread that few people had ever heard of this school until this incident got press. Well, they’ve heard of it now, and I have a funny feeling that they’re going to get a lot fewer applications this spring. And his students care; can you imagine how those who formerly thought he had integrity must now feel? And his wife and kids, if any, probably care, if they’ve been getting irate phone calls or eggings.
He said it. He fucked up. I have no sympathy for him, but plenty for those others.
That’s what I said: he is not my problem. He is his college’s problem. He is his student’s problem. He is his family’s problem. Maybe he is the Midshipman’s problem. He is a jerk with tunnel vision and, like a few academics and others, seems to think that his little view of the universe is the only valid view. You know better. I know better. For all I know he kicks his dog and is unkind to his mother. He is not my problem. I have enough problems that are exclusively my problem that I don’t need to go galloping off in four directions at once looking to discover other people’s problems. Let the guy sink in to the obscurity he deserves.
SG, I’ve heard that lame argument before. No one put a gun to your head to make you read this thread. That’s another right you have as a citizen: the right to not pay attention to something in which you have no interest. What you lack is the right to tell other people what they should get upset about. And no one’s been telling you that you should be upset about this, so the problem, right now, is you.
So now I’m the problem? You do have a dull life, don’t you, Sport. With a little effort you might find some reason to mount your high horse that actually concerns you. God forbid that I don’t share your sense of out rage. If you don’t like what this sad excuse for an academic has done, tell him. I continue not to much care, about him or about your highly developed capacity for indignation.
Actually, gigi, the prof should apologize for (a) his rudeness and (b) his stupidity. Said stupidity is the views he holds.
Sounds like you do; just that your outrage is directed at the people in this thread who are discussing the issue. Again I say, if you’re not interested, don’t read.
Hmm, as always I’m perplexed by the way many Americans seem to glorify their military. Such a big outrage over a single asshole professor, some even wishing that his career be ruined over this. All because of some heated words. Is the military really such a precious organisation?
Somehow it doesn’t ring very well with the ideals expressed in the US Constitution.
I’m American and I am perplexed too. This is part of the reason I don’t think he should have to apologize for his views. While some (OK, many) see soldiers as heroes who preserve our freedom, and tragic victims when they are killed, I see people who are willing (in particular those who volunteer) to be part of efforts that kill other people. I can understand (almost) participating if you are drafted and face jail or leaving the country, but even then there is always a choice to not be part of the killing of others.
I know, I am female and old and will never face that choice, and what I’m saying is insulting and I’m lucky I’m free to say it. I can’t help all that; it’s still my view and while it may not be understood, it should be tolerated. I hope I have said it less virulently than the professor, but I see where he is coming from.
On the other hand, there are bad people in the world- people who would harm others, usually motivated by ethnic/religeous hatred, greed or envy. These people have no qualms about being “part of efforts that kill other people.” To counter them, we (the US and other civilized societies) have people that are willing to stand in the way- to put the good of others ahead of their own. That the protected feel the need to call the protectors “baby killers” and “a disgrace to the country” is abhorent. They have the right to say it, but I (and others) have a right to think and say that they complete asshats.
That’s how freedom of thought and expression works.
Please read the following to understand the University’s take on this whole situation:
http://www.sxu.edu/news/kirstein_statement.htm
Personally, as a veteran, I fail to understand why this person is allowed to teach the youth of our country. I have no problem with anyone being an avowed pacifist, but to call a volunteer member of any branch of the military a “babykiller” is, and remains, reprehensible.
Gotta have your blood huh? Who will it help to ruin this professor’s life? Gonna make others think twice before speaking their mind?
:rolleyes:
The problem, of course, is not that this guy thinks and says that he regards members of the armed services as reprehensible people who exist to do hideous things at the direction of an amoral power but that he chose to express his opinion in such an ungenerous and offensive way to a person who innocently asked a fairly innocuous question. It is one thing to deplore the professor’s lack of class; it is another thing entirely to want his head on a pike because of his aberrant and unorthodox take on the armed forces. The fact that a person once put himself in harms way at the direction of the national government gives no entitlement to require everyone else to share the view that the armed forces are to be respected. Criticism of his view is my right just as it is his right to express it. Whether he is to be hounded from his position in academia is not a decision I get to make, especially if he is working in a private school—perhaps even more so if he is in a public school since that would involve a government imposed sanction for holding an unpopular opinion. I can deplore the guy’s views while recognizing that it is perfectly appropriate for him to express them. Likewise, it is perfectly appropriate for those views to be criticized.
To carry this to an extreme, should the Primitive Christians rise up and demand a general purge of the Zoology department at a state college, throwing out all who do not buy the “the hand of God in six days” approach to creation? How is the imposition of one orthodoxy and more despicable than the other? Do we require everyone march in lockstep?
Doesn’t the guy serve a legitimate end when he forces us to think and defend our opinion? Or should we attempt to howl down this and every other dissident voice in the name of patriotism, or social conformity or one dogma or another? If we are not strong enough if our allegiance to freedom of thought to accept this clown for what ever he might be worth then that vaunted freedom is a sham. Shout that he is an ass with a thinking disorder, sure. Insist that he be silenced, no.
You got it. Professor Kirstein has shown himself to be no better than some overt racist or Nazi. Maybe people like that deserve to not be fired from a tenured position, but they should be required to perform their jobs without promoting their perverse beliefs.
Gigi wrote:
But the irony is that the soldier whom the professor excoriated is the very embodiment of why the professor had the freedom to speak his mind. It’s like scolding the man who is wrestling with your mugger.
Then you have one incredibly narrow, not to mention moronic, view of what this country’s military is, how it works, and what it does.
So, in your view, if someone’s drafted then it’s okay to be a killer? As I said above, you have one incredibly moronic viewpoint.
{Note from Monty: bolding in the quote below is mine.}
Ah, so you’re a real-life troll. You say things just to be insulting.
Actually, you can help that. Get educated. Learn about the military, learn about what it does, learn about how it works.
Oh, your right to be a fool and to say foolish things is certainly tolerated in this country. I’m one of those folks who served in the military to help guarantee that very right.
I see where you’re both coming from: decisions made from stupidity.
Does this count as invoking Godwin’s law? 
No. No more than children when they go through the “shocking and outrageous statements to see if they can provoke grown-ups” stage are serving a legitimate need.
**
Here’s where we disagree. That asshole has the freedom of speech. I would fight for his right to say whatever drooling idiocy passes for thought within him.
However, the First Ammendment does not guarantee the freedom from the consequences of your speech, only governmental consequences. If I were to go on national tv while wearing a tee-shirt of the company I’m working for and proclaim that child-molesters and child-murderers serve a useful function by helping to curb overpopulation my freedom of speech isn’t even remotely violated if my company fires me.
There is a small, vocal minority that mistakenly believes that freedom of speech means freedom from rebuttal or consequences. I disagree. I’m glad the bastard was suspended and I sincerely hope that this doesn’t blow over and that he’s fired. He’s entitled to his views, and I’m entitled to hope that he suffers for them.
Kinda like the soldiers who died guaranteeing him the right to spew his hatred suffered.
Fenris
And I am puzzled by the need of the Finns on this board to evoke stereotypes to highlight their philosophic differences. Though you sound a little less nuts than Henry B, the Karelian King of Godwin.
I don’t see much in this thread about people wanting to end this guy’s career. The public embarassment is enough for most people who found his tone and statements offensive.
Somehow, I doubt that if a Finnish professor at the time of the Russian invasion had issued an intemperate denunciation of his country’s military, he’d be covered with garlands of flowers. America is fighting one undeclared war and may soon be involved in another, so respect for the military is taken seriously. Some people have the sense to separate their opposition to the Bush Administration from their feelings about our armed forces.