posted
I don't think either party involved is very intelligent. I mean
"He wrote it would be a “nice slap” in the “big fat face” of fundamentalists."
is an extremely dumb thing to write. Obviously beating him up was an extremely dumb thing to do too, and those guys obviously aren't very bright. But maybe they knocked some sense into him Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excuse me. You people are seriously equating something written on a private email list among people of similar beliefs, with no thought that it would be read by the people insulted, with actual, physical violence? Intelligence is not the point! Respect for other people's right to free speech and freedom from harm is!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As unimpressed as I am with Professor Mirecki's despicable and bigoted comments, it is absolutely wrong to attack him physically.
There is a small part of me saying, I wonder if this incident is a hoax. It wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. But we'll see how the police investigation turns out. He probably did get beaten.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First: I whole heartedly condemn the attacks on him, if they were done by people seeking revenge for his comments. (If, by some slight chance, the attack was staged, I wish they would have hit him harder)
Second: Don't equate the "right to free speech," with a blank check to spew bigoted and insulting speech. Nobody contends that he should be sent to jail for what he said, but that still doesn't make his comment justified. And the fact that he said them behind the backs of the people he was attacking does not in anyway justify his statements. The lack of civility in academia is astounding, not to mention the fact that these kind of statements call into question a professor's ability and willingness to provide an intelligent, balanced, and educational classroom and environment.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh... let me see if I can put this in perspective. Suppose I become aware that some creationist is chortling to his friends that his latest article, or lawsuit, or whatever, is a nice slap in the face of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Incensed at being thus insulted, I set out to beat him up, and knock a couple of his teeth out. Would there then be this kind of sneaking understanding of my point of view? Would there be suggestions that my victim had perhaps faked the assault?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aerto: Second: Don't equate the "right to free speech," with a blank check to spew bigoted and insulting speech.
You are seriously suggesting that 'free speech' means 'up to the point where the local vigilante squad goes after you'?
About the balanced classroom discussion, I wonder if you guys are perhaps unaware that comrade Mirecki is professor of religious studies. It's hardly a case of some liberal atheist screwball going out of his way to annoy the fundies.
Incidentally, he has apparently apologised for the email - a private statement not intended for publication - and still his opponents are not appeased : In this article, a State Senator is quoted as saying "I’m surprised that something more severe isn’t happening to this teacher who obviously has a hatred for Christians." Talk about your unbiased support for free speech! What's next, issue of hunting licences for those dam' liberals?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aerto: Second: Don't equate the "right to free speech," with a blank check to spew bigoted and insulting speech.
You are seriously suggesting that 'free speech' means 'up to the point where the local vigilante squad goes after you'?
About the balanced classroom discussion, I wonder if you guys are perhaps unaware that comrade Mirecki is professor of religious studies. It's hardly a case of some liberal atheist screwball going out of his way to annoy the fundies.
Incidentally, he has apparently apologised for the email - a private statement not intended for publication - and still his opponents are not appeased : In this article, a State Senator is quoted as saying "I’m surprised that something more severe isn’t happening to this teacher who obviously has a hatred for Christians." Talk about your unbiased support for free speech! What's next, issue of hunting licences for those dam' liberals?
No, I am not and did not suggest any such thing. I condemn the attacks, but I can also condemn the speech without approving the attacks. There are, or used to be, such things as civility and respect. These concepts, not a vigilante squad, should have "restrained" the speech of this professor and all people, especially those working in academia.
Also, the fact that a professor is one of religious studies does not in anyway indicate what his personal political and religious beliefs are. At the University I attended, the professors in the religious studies department were just as liberal as the rest of the university and about half of them did not believe in any religion. Besides, regardless of his beliefs, what he said was wrong. (And if the unnamed Senator you mentioned intended to suggest that something bad (i.e. death) should happen to the professor, that too is wrong).
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The professor has problems with what he sees as extremists in a group, extremists that even members of that group have spoken against. It does not follow that he hates the group.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh... let me see if I can put this in perspective. Suppose I become aware that some creationist is chortling to his friends that his latest article, or lawsuit, or whatever, is a nice slap in the face of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Incensed at being thus insulted, I set out to beat him up, and knock a couple of his teeth out. Would there then be this kind of sneaking understanding of my point of view? Would there be suggestions that my victim had perhaps faked the assault?
No, I would condemn your attacks and I would also condemn the hypothetical person's statements villifying the other side as disrespectful, unnecessary, and uncivil. Just as I am doing in this, actual, case.
And, by the way, I'm sure there would be suggestions, by people who don't like his views, that the victim had faked his assault. Conspiracy theories are fun and people love to see them everywhere. I don't really think the professor beat the crap out of himself (brings to mind Jim Carrey and "Liar, Liar"). The mention in my post was one of my weak attempts at humor. I really should stop, but I just can't seem to figure out that I'm not funny. Oh well.
posted
Oh, wow, there sure are a lot of idiots in the world. Sorry this happened to Mirecki. Glad he came out of it no worse than he did.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting ... Mirecki said something hurtful to other spiritually and mentally but not physicall and others responded by hurting him physically and (i'd assume) mentally, but not spiritually. No thoughts or opinions on the subject I'm going to post here, but I think its interesting.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, as KoM has previously pointed out, he didn't say something hurtful "to" fundamentalist christians. His comments, while rude and not terribly bright, were on a mailing list and not intended for publication. The particularly stupid things about his making those comments is that he should have known they would get out, and that they resulted in the class he was so proud of getting canceled.
No, the comments were neither nice nor necessary, but there is a world of difference between insulting somebody and severely beating somebody.
The unintelligent part that struck me about the article though, was the "getting out of his car" part. If a pickup truck you don't recognize is tailgaiting you and pulls over behind you when you pull off to the side of the road you keep your doors locked, the window only open a crack, and your foot ready to hit the gas.
posted
That is not stupidity, but trust in the value of civilisation. In this case, misguided trust.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enigmatic, that's straying dangerously close to the "he was stupid so he deserved what he got" defense...
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Enigmatic, that's straying dangerously close to the "he was stupid so he deserved what he got" defense...
I really don't think Enigmatic was going that way. Maybe up to "stupid" for doing that, but not farther.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That is not stupidity, but trust in the value of civilization. In this case, misguided trust.
Hmm, is it so? I mean, would you get out if that happened to you? "Trust" is ok, but I don't see the need for "blind trust" in this case.
And no, by this I'm not saying he deserved it. Just that I hope he learned a lesson from this for his own good, and I'm sorry he wasn't careful enough to avoid the situation altogether.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, but even if the man shouted his comments from the street corner using a 1000 watt bull horn, beating him up is not the proper response.
And saying that in some way this was "to be expected" is to admit that the group he was talking about includes people who are so lacking in Christian values, and so unconcerned with the law, that we should all just fear them and their violent ways.
Ultimately, the fact is that Prof. M. broke no laws and said some rather pointed things about a vaguely defined group of people in our society, and in particular about one way to counter their influence in society as he sees it.
There are numerous responses to this that are legal, ethical, and work well in a Christian framework. Beating him up is not one of them.
As for the professor's intelligence, I'd have to say I'm less than impressed on several fronts, of which I'll mention just two: 1) As Enigmatic said already, his off-hand comments ended up generating such a controversy that his course was cancelled. IMHO, the university probably had to make a choice between going ahead with this elective course and providing added security, dealing with the press and no-doubt a flood of mail, etc. and simply cancelling it and spending their limited resources on providing the education that students are paying them to deliver.
It'd be nice if they could've taken a more courageous stand, but it also would be nice if they could encourage their professors to consider the broader implications when they are in a position to do the university good or ill.
2) Getting out of the car...well, that was dumb. When you are being followed, drive to the nearest police station and THEN get out of your car. If it is more urgent than that, you go to a public place.
If the people who are following you are good, law abiding citizens, they will not mind this behavior. If they mean you harm, then you at least have a chance at getting some help.
Situational awareness people! There's trust, and then there's just plain lack of common sense.
Does that mean I think he "deserved it?" No! Of course not! And saying that he lacked common sense is not anywhere near (let alone dangerously close to) saying he deserved it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the attack was disgusting (and obviously not productive), that doesn't mean the comments weren't also disgusting.
It sounds like it would be pretty inaccurate to claim the email was private. It was a mass email to students by a professor at their university, regarding a course he was teaching. As such, he should have realized it would be public, and might very well end up being read by 'fundies'. Regardless, it is a bad idea in general to try and insult people behind their backs - as anyone who went through middle school should have learned.
And 'free speech' does not mean that saying wrongful things ceases being wrongful. It simply means the government can't stop you from saying it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree his email comments were disgusting, but violence was too harsh a reaction.
Which puts me right in the place where I'm sure most of you expected I'd come down on this. I guess I'm predictable. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I agree his email comments were disgusting, but violence was too harsh a reaction.
Out of interest, how disgusting would his comments have to have been in order for violence to be an appropriate reaction?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Guys, I know Paul Mirecki. I took a number of classes from him, and have socialized with him a tiny bit. He's a very, very bright guy. He is also a good hearted person who is a lot of fun to interact with. What he *isn't*, I think, is terribly wise. Both his comments to the KU listserve and his decision to get out of his car when approached by a couple of strangers who had previously been tailgating him on a deserted country road were foolish.
Will B, you say that you think it likely that this was a hoax. Would tell me what you think Mirecki's motive would be for doing such a thing? I'd love to hear it.
I felt like the story as reported in the article didn't quite add up, but I attribute that to the reporter not having the complete story rather than to the attack's having been staged.
Tresopax, there's one thing that I'd like you to clarify. Do you feel that a beating is justified in response to the comments the Mirecki made?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I'm suspicious is that we have no suspects, and there have been several faked "hate crime" reports over the past couple of years.
It's hard to justify that people have a responsibility to believe reports without confirmation or evidence.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Will B, you say that you think it likely that this was a hoax. Would tell me what you think Mirecki's motive would be for doing such a thing? I'd love to hear it.
To make his opponents look like a bunch of ignorant, violent cretins?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of interest, how disgusting would his comments have to have been in order for violence to be an appropriate reaction?
O please, Tom. You know Belle better than this. Do you expect her to actually answer this kind of question?
BTW, how long since you stopped beating your wife?
I don't think ANYONE in this thread (or the board, for that matter) thinks that the response of these two morons (and I mean complete and total morons whose ability to answer ideas they don't even comprehend is simply to hit the person speaking them) is in any way justified.
Now, there are some who feel that he was being callously derisive of people's beliefs (imagine if the situation was reversed and a politician sent a 'private email' mentioning some action that would 'slap the face of Islamic fundies'. There would be a huge reaction and you know it.)
But no one says (or even hinted) that there is ANY REASON to respond to words with violence. And it's wrong of you to imply (with your innocent sounding question) that Belle might think there is a point when there is. You know her better than that.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Enigmatic, that's straying dangerously close to the "he was stupid so he deserved what he got" defense...
Only if you're reading much more into what I wrote than what I actually wrote. I said nothing about deserve and nothing defending his attackers. If I say "You should look both ways before crossing the street" that does not imply "You deserve to get hit by a car if you don't."
"Unwise" would have been a more accurate term for getting out of the car than "stupid," admittedly. Also, that's an easy judgement for us to make in hindsight. I'd just wanted to point out that reading the article's description of events my initial reaction was "What was he thinking? Stay in the car and drive away as soon as they get out of theirs!" But perhaps his teennage years didn't include as much time actively trying to avoid getting beat up as mine did, so he may not know that.
quote:The reason I'm suspicious is that we have no suspects, and there have been several faked "hate crime" reports over the past couple of years.
Well, there are no suspects because the attack took place in an isolated area, and the victim didn't get a good look at his accusers. Does it really seem that odd that, given that, that they wouldn't yet know who had done it? Hopefully somebody will brag about it to their friends, and either be overeheard or turned in by those friends. Otherwise I think that they're unlikely to ever catch the pair.
What difference does it make if there have been faked attacks in the past? There have been false allegations of rape in the past too, but if I hear that a woman has been raped my first thought isn't that she's making it up.
quote:It's hard to justify that people have a responsibility to believe reports without confirmation or evidence.
Is this the approach you generally take, when you hear of something? It isn't uncommon for it to take a while for a suspect to emerge. If you read in your local paper that a house down the street from you was broken into, do you immediately assume, until it is proven otherwise, that more than likely the owner of the house staged the break-in for whatever reason? That does happen occasionally, after all.
Part of the reason that I believe Mirecki is because I personally know him, and don't feel from what I've observed of him that staging an attack like this is something that he would do, of course, but I also don't see anything that would make an unbiased person think that he had fabricated the attack.
Porter, you wrote, in response to my question as to what his motive would be for faking an attack on himself
quote:"To make his opponents look like a bunch of ignorant, violent cretins? ".
That is plausible, but it seems to me that he has so much more to lose than to gain from doing such a thing as to make it unlikely that he would do something like this based on such a desire. This guy is a tenured professor, head of his department for the moment, author of a number of books and articles, some of them groundbreaking. He is internationally known and respected in his field. I can't see him risking all of that just to make his opponents look bad, and I'd be more than willing to bet that he feels that even before the attack his opponents had managed that nicely themselves.*
*Note that I'm not saying that this is the case. I'm saying that I think that Mirecki feels this way.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax, there's one thing that I'd like you to clarify. Do you feel that a beating is justified in response to the comments the Mirecki made?
No. Not even slightly justified.
Good. It sounded to me from your initial post, and its juxtaposition with the thread's initial post, as though you did feel this way, but from what I knew of you it didn't make sense that you'd feel that way. I just wanted to make sure.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But no one says (or even hinted) that there is ANY REASON to respond to words with violence. And it's wrong of you to imply (with your innocent sounding question) that Belle might think there is a point when there is. You know her better than that.
Absolutely. And what I was subtly trying to point out is that it's completely unnecessary to observe how inflammatory he may or may not have been if you're really going to condemn the attack as being inexcusable in any case. And if it's excusable in some cases, you should say so.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Porter, you wrote, in response to my question as to what his motive would be for faking an attack on himself
quote:"To make his opponents look like a bunch of ignorant, violent cretins? ".
That is plausible, but it seems to me that he has so much more to lose than to gain from doing such a thing as to make it unlikely that he would do something like this based on such a desire. This guy is a tenured professor, head of his department for the moment, author of a number of books and articles, some of them groundbreaking. He is internationally known and respected in his field. I can't see him risking all of that just to make his opponents look bad, and I'd be more than willing to bet that he feels that even before the attack his opponents had managed that nicely themselves.*
I don't think he faked it, but you were asking what possible motive he could have had for faking it, so I provided an obvious one.
Besides, no matter how vile your opponents have acted, they can always act worse.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Absolutely. And what I was subtly trying to point out is that it's completely unnecessary to observe how inflammatory he may or may not have been if you're really going to condemn the attack as being inexcusable in any case. And if it's excusable in some cases, you should say so.
That's exactly what I've been wondering while reading this thread.
My gut tells me that there is a line you can cross, verbally, to invite a response, physically. I guess that's not very civilized of me, and I've shrugged off a lot of things in my short life. But I really do feel there is sometimes justification for physical reactions to verbal abuse.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, in this case, by their actions, they are making themselves as CINOs (Christians in Name Only).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh great! 'Cuz I'm pretty sure that Jesus advocated beating people up when they were insulting! This kind of stuff makes me crazy!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I just have seen people swing at someone who I felt had crossed the line, and I felt the swing was justified. Not in the legal sense, of course. But I didn't feel that they were in the wrong. Even though they swung, they didn't initiate the fight.
I don't want to get specific, because it's very subjective. There are a lot of liberties that people who know me take (with jokes and stuff) that I wouldn't stand for from a stranger. And vice versa. There are things that wouldn't bother me from someone I didn't know that would be over the line from a friend.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think he faked it, but you were asking what possible motive he could have had for faking it, so I provided an obvious one.
Oh, yeah, I understood that, and acknowledged that it was a plausible motive for a person to do this. After saying so, though, I felt like I needed to go on to explain why I didn't think that this would have been a motive of Mirecki's.
quote:Besides, no matter how vile your opponents have acted, they can always act worse.
posted
If someone does something I find offensive and then gets beaten up for it, I wouldn't say, "Well, what he did was really offensive. And the beating thing was wrong, too." That's clearly an attempt to at least implicitly blame the victim.
If you want to criticize the guy, criticize him. But not in the context of condemning the beating. That should be condemned without qualification. If you want to add criticism of the victim separately, fine, but that's not what I saw here.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celebrindal: "But I really do feel there is sometimes justification for physical reactions to verbal abuse." Like threats? Please clarify...
Ok, I'll take the bait so that everyone can jump on me. If I was somewhere with my wife and someone got in her face and said some truly vile things, I would probably have a physical reaction. I know intellectually that there are other responses like walking away, etc. But to be perfectly honest, that is a situation in which words might move me to physical force. Now everyone can tell me how unChristian and uncivilized I am.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you know you're unChristian, why do you accept it? Shouldn't your religion be suggesting to you that you change this about yourself?
I understand that many of things that Christ asked his followers to do are hard and that people have problesm living up to them, but I've never gotten how the idea that they are hard, so you don't have to aspire to them is responsible.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
O please, Tom. You know Belle better than this. Do you expect her to actually answer this kind of question?
