Y’know what? I had thought to perhaps try and defend my post but there’s no need. The posters after me, including, ** december**, Libertarian! and Monty have done a good enough job of explaining reality to the anal sphincters that seem to inhabit these topics.
Regardless of what any of you say, I will still encourage all of my children, be they male or female, to enter the military for the sole reason that someone needs to protect our ideals and freedom AND your rights to deny them.
BTW, this past Monday was a federal holiday in the United States–Veterans Day. So, gigi, did you take the day off?
I did!
Then again, I spent (literally) most of the day crying for lost friends. Can any of you say the same?
Fenris: I’m with you on this. Actually, I think the guy’s going to get canned. His webpage lists “moral act” as his primary view of teaching. Well, his peers who are reviewing his tenure status get to decide if his latest stunt qualifies as moral. To his credit, the prof did volunteer to have this done earlier than scheduled.
Xploder: Thanks.
Do we owe any of our freedom to the scientists and engineers that create the technology that makes the US military as what it is?
I knew I shouldn’t have used such a general term as “many Americans”, even though in the context of this thread I felt it was accurate. Sorry about that. Do you feel that prior to the WTC attacks, the professor would have gotten away with it?
As for people wishing further ill to the prof’s career, you are entirely correct that there aren’t that many posters saying that. Which is why I said “some” are doing it. Again, apologies if it wasn’t exact enough.
If you want to believe your rights are bestowed upon you by government, knock yourself out.
My rights are not a “gift” from the state. They likewise didn’t come from “The People” or our “Founding Lawyers.”
My rights were given to me by my Creator. And if you disagree – fine. I really don’t give a shit. it won’t change my opinion in the slightest…
After reading this, I put this guy’s name into the search engine, and this is what came up. (First letter to the editor on the right hand side of the screen) The word “context”–in addition to the words “tact” and “restraint”–seem to be missing from this fuckhead’s vocabulary.
Should he be fired? I don’t know. I’m honestly torn on this one. I’m an army vet and reading his e-mail got me pretty pissed off (It didn’t help that I looked at his picture and found myself thinking of Fred Rogers after he took a brown tab and found himself on a particularly bumpy ride on the magic trolley.).
And yet … if they do fire him, doesn’t that just confirm what everybody seems to be saying about the absence of free speech on campuses? I know that firing him wouldn’t be violating his first amendment rights, but I still find it a grey area, and stifling speech in any form just doesn’t seem right, especially if it was speech within a private e-mail.
Look, everyone knows this guy is a fuck in a sweater. Everyone knows that his university knows it, too. I say, keep this guy on, so that he can face his students in shame for however long he lasts at this place. I’m sure there’s a campus paper. Every Veteran’s Day, his little e-mail can trotted out for the freshmen in some letter to the editor, just so that everyone can see what a swell guy they have in Dr. Kirstein. In the interests of free speech, students could be allowed to write this guy vocally and often, demanding to know where he gets off breathing their oxygen. Let him face the consequences of his actions on his own.
I don’t think he’ll stick it out for very long. Then he’ll be gone, and no one will have forced him out because of what he said, and he won’t be a martyr, even in his own mind. Just a thought. YMMV.
Crafter: Well, that’s not really a well-founded opinion, though, is it? It’s essentially a repetition of what you’ve heard, no doubt, numerous times but haven’t really considered the implications of such a stance. And what if there’s no Creator?
As for my rights, I view them as existing as any other idea exists. All that the government does is recognize that those rights exist and the manner in which the body politic of this country forces the government to make such recognition is the Constitution.
quarx: Interesting link. Did you notice that the prof decided to put the word terrorism in quotes? Looks to me like he has a problem with observing reality.
Why is your opinion any better founded than his, Monty? Personally, I think he holds a quite well-founded opinion for reasons I’ve explained a hundred times. If you don’t want to claim ownership of your mind and body, that’s fine. But if you think you can claim ownership of mine, you’ve gone too far.
And where exactly, Lib, did I not claim ownership of my mind and body? Where did I claim ownership of yours?
As to my opinion:
Well, first I’ve considered what are the implications if those rights are dependent upon being granted by a supernatural power. In that case, then they’re merely a whim, and not something I deserve as a living, thinking, rational being.
Then I considered what the implications would be if there were no supernatural power granting those rights. In that case, they must either exist as actual objects themselves or as mental constructs, ideas. They’re obviously not physical objects; therefore, they’re ideas. Each right is a mental construct, something that I believe I have.
Then I went back to considering the idea that those rights were dependent upon some supernatural power. Now, not everyone has the same rights: there are those in North Korea who have none of the ones I consider to exist for me in the US. That then means that neither Nature or some deity, assuming that’s the granting power for them, is merely capricious. Not only has that power granted a certain set of rights to me, but it’s withheld them from others based on geographic place.
Finally, I came to the conclusion that the set of rights I hold is not only a mental construct, but also a social construct. This construct is recognized by my government because the people who comprise the society of which I am a part demand it.
So, my opinion is one that I did not just regurgitate; it’s one I came up with my own after due thought.
In my posting above, please mentally construct “neither” as “either.” Thanks.
So, Lib, how does nature give us a right to property (we’ll start with this one since I’d prefer to pin the argument down and property seems to be considered a basic right)? And if nature gives us this right, wouldn’t it be inviolable? Especially in the natural (read: non-human) world? Watch any nature program and you can see that property belongs to the organism(s) that are strong enough to take it and keep it, not some sort of philosophical construct that says that those who labor for something ought to have a right to keep it.
That view is something humans have developed on their own and have agreed makes sense societally. It comes not from nature, but from men. Should the society change its collective mind, then guess what…you don’t have that right anymore.
Same with all other rights.
Which soldiers? All soldiers? German soldiers in the Great War who wore belt buckles engraved “Gott mit uns” or those across the no man’s land blessed by the pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury?
How about Hitler’s soldiers? Stalin’s. How about US soldiers in Vietnam?
It is not soldiers per se; it is the political forces behind them which determine whether their cause is just.
Did you just whoosh yourself?
Or am I confused as usual?
Neurotik asked:
Were you born? When you were, did you have a body?
Galen asked:
Soldiers who protect rights. Were you not taught that, when reading for comprehension, to consider context?
Yes and yes. Please continue.
Nonsense, take a look at Costa Rica. It willingly gave up its army to be an example of peace. Surrounded by unstable, often land-hungry governments, it still remains independent, and is as free as the United States. Armies don’t defend rights, they defend governments, and that’s not quite the same thing.
Another thing is that any history teacher worth his salt (i.e. one who is aware of modern examination of the American Revolution without jingoism) would know that the Founding Fathers can be seen as little different than guerilla revolutionaries who took it upon themselves to seek an perhaps unwise independence.
UnuMondo