Florida professor could be fired for suggesting that the Sandy Hook shooting was a Hoax.

[Dimitriov]

Of course he should be fired. No one that stupid has any business teaching at a University.

 

[metal mustache]

Im glad the school isnt firing him for something he said on a blog, it would be different if he was saying it to his students during class though.

 

[Vivi22]

For discussion sake, do you think he should be fired for his statements?

Nope. Key words here are "personal blog", in other words "none of my employer's fucking business". As long as he's not doing anything illegal or detrimental to his employer then it should be absolutely nothing to do with them.

Public statements become everyone's business by virtue of being public. And in the event that someone who is supposed to be intelligent and rational spouts idiotic, unsupported bullshit publicly, that reflects back on their employer when said employer is paying this person to teach people.

Now I'm not saying that is the case here. I haven't read this persons full comments so I don't know if he was being taken out of context or what is full intended point was. But the idea that you can publicly say whatever you want and not face consequences with your employer is silly and has no grounding in reality. You are not free to say whatever you want, not matter how stupid, or how poorly it reflects on you and your employer just because you weren't at work or speaking explicitly on your employers behalf when it happened.

And let's get real here; if you work at a University where your job is to teach facts and intellectually challenge students, and you make statements in favour of arguments not supported by facts which are intellectually dishonest and you would have to be a complete idiot on some level to believe, you probably should be fired. Because even if you aren't spouting that crap in the classroom, it at the very least calls your ability to to be a rational, intelligent human being capable of teaching others without bias into question, and it reflects poorly on a University to continue employing such a person. And Universities are businesses whose continued and future success depends, at least in part, on the quality (both in fact and as perceived by the public) of it's faculty.

 

[axlryder]

From what I gather, the dude made a simple supposition about the media on his blog, and people be freakin' out. 1st amendment aside (because it isn't applicable) I think people calling for his termination are overreacting. I'm glad the school is behind him.

 

[Musette]

I don't know what's more annoying: the fact that people read the words "Florida Professor" and assume that he is a professor at the university I'm attending, or the fact that FAU is in my home town. People have been calling FAU "Find Another University" for years, and while I don't have a huge problem with the university, shit like this does not help their public image at all.

 

[barbzilla]

The professor is not involved in the sciences so I don't feel that his opposition to scientific notion is all that relevant.

No, read again. He's not opposed to a specific scientific notion. If he supports this conspiracy theory, then he is acting in an anti-scientific manner. He would be making a truth claim about the world which contradicts observable evidence. That should be inexcusable in any secular university, regardless of department.

You are inferring again. He never made any truth claims, he never even said he believes the theory.

For God''s sake, read what I wrote, will you? Do you not see the italicized "if" that makes your correction completely meaningless?

You are the one inferring that he was making truth claims and believed the hoax in the first place,

Do you need a refresher on what the word "if" means? It's a conditional- meaning that it makes the main clause of the sentence dependent on the clause it appears in. It doesn't actually say that the clause it appears in is true.

Not once in this thread did I say that he actually supported the conspiracy theory. I said "if" he supported it. Quit making up a story that didn't happen just so you can win on the Internet.

I'm not interested in this specific person's case. I'm interested in educating Escapists who don't understand what freedom of speech entails and how academia works.

I apologize for that particular statement, we have spent so much time debating the if part of it, that I forgot you originally said he shouldn't be fired. That was my bad for not looking back and refreshing myself. I have about 5 different conversations going on with people at the same time and I forgot the way your initial statement was made. Carry on m8

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

How about a stern finger-waving and ask him would he please respect the kiddies' right to an education as objective as they can get?

 

[barbzilla]

Of course he should be fired. No one that stupid has any business teaching at a University.

Are you going to give any actual thoughts on the subject matter or are you just going to make a sarcastic comment and then post a troll face? I am going to assume (dangerous, I know) that you think he should keep his job. Am I correct?

 

[barbzilla]

For discussion sake, do you think he should be fired for his statements?

Nope. Key words here are "personal blog", in other words "none of my employer's fucking business". As long as he's not doing anything illegal or detrimental to his employer then it should be absolutely nothing to do with them.

Public statements become everyone's business by virtue of being public. And in the event that someone who is supposed to be intelligent and rational spouts idiotic, unsupported bullshit publicly, that reflects back on their employer when said employer is paying this person to teach people.

Now I'm not saying that is the case here. I haven't read this persons full comments so I don't know if he was being taken out of context or what is full intended point was. But the idea that you can publicly say whatever you want and not face consequences with your employer is silly and has no grounding in reality. You are not free to say whatever you want, not matter how stupid, or how poorly it reflects on you and your employer just because you weren't at work or speaking explicitly on your employers behalf when it happened.

And let's get real here; if you work at a University where your job is to teach facts and intellectually challenge students, and you make statements in favour of arguments not supported by facts which are intellectually dishonest and you would have to be a complete idiot on some level to believe, you probably should be fired. Because even if you aren't spouting that crap in the classroom, it at the very least calls your ability to to be a rational, intelligent human being capable of teaching others without bias into question, and it reflects poorly on a University to continue employing such a person. And Universities are businesses whose continued and future success depends, at least in part, on the quality (both in fact and as perceived by the public) of it's faculty.

He doesn't actually believe in the full concept of the conspiracy, he just thinks that the media dropped the ball on some information and that there are some facts that seem fishy.

As for your last paragraph;
People who believe this particular conspiracy theory shouldn't be immediately ostracised. There are no definitive facts to refute the conspiracy's claim, so it isn't set in stone yet. The Watergate scandal was originally a Conspiracy Theory and people looked at the those who believed it as nut jobs. Well it turned out to be true, the same could happen here (though its highly unlikely). So saying that it "calls your ability to be a rational, intelligent human being ... into question" isn't a very nice thing to do. Nor is it very accurate. Remember most of our big government scandals originated as conspiracy theories, so don't be so quick to dismiss the people who investigate them (though the gung-ho ones who make a big stink about it can usually be ignored and dismissed). So in short, I don't think he should be fired for thinking that.

 

[bigman88]

Its amazing what's nutty conspiracy theory because your president yackign through the T.V. didn't tell you.

U.S. trafficking drugs to inner city areas domestically and worldwide since the early 1900's? Any and everybody saying anything about this were...conspiracy theorists. Despite mountains of evidence presented by local and federal cops, judges, lawyers, politicians, business figures, civilians, and even more evidence of others of their position covering it up. But none of it matters because you didn't here it from the T.V. Then they make a single momentary piece about it on the evening news, and boom, its a horrible fact swept under the rug forever.

Death toll from U.S. drone strikes in the past few years numbering close to the millions? What death toll? Nutty theorists! I didnt hear it form the government, so it never happened! Even though droves of journalists, news agencies and civilians are saying drone strikes are killing many daily? Yet the president says on the tube there are no casualties from drone strikes. Oh well, i guess there all liars, or crazy.

MK ULTRA? Anyone convinced about this before several CIA personnel disgusted with the whole thing leaked official documents to the public were deemed conspiracy cooks. What does your government say after they are forced into damage control from these publicly leaked documents? Yep, a few crazy mofos were conducting nasty mind control experiments. We are sorry, and it will never happen again. What's said when more documents are released that this was financed by the those from up top? Whoops, we'll reprimand them, our bad. Mind you, despite this being established fact, it never made it onto your T.V.

UFO'S? conspiracy theory until your government told you it wasn't, with it's public disclosures, federal documents, years of eyewitness testimony and what not. The list of this goes on and on.

I wonder what other cooky things people think about that just might be true, and have a crap load of evidence to back it up? Vaccines being a gaint bulls*** medical hoax that only weakened peoples immunity to disease? U.S. giving guns to criminal organizations in poor countries? Fluoride in our water when protection for your teeth is not what they care about? Processed foods containing a bunch of shi**y chemicals that erodes the human bodies ability to maintain health while whole organic foods relly are the way to go? Ha. All nutty.

Anybody actually do any research on the Sandy Hook shooting? You see the long list of inconsistencies and oddities there? The police chatter that identified more than 1 shooter?

That an assault rifle was never actually used?

That the car Lanza used and the guns were found in, was not Lanza's car?

That there are several instances where parents of the victims just seem to be switching from normal and chilled to sad and grieving when it's there time in front of the camera's?

That Vistoria Sotto's death was posted days before the shooting on her facebook page?

That Sandy hook is referenced as a strike zone on a map in the Dark Knight rises?

That Adam's dad was set to testify in this big Libor case that would make several high level officials of world- wide financial institutions implicit in all sorts of money grabbing and hiding, which is the same situation as James Holmes and his father with the aurora shooting?

That a mysterious man was found handcuffed ans surrounded by officers in the woods next to the school? That the principal of the school commented on the incident on a local Sandy Hook news site even though she was supposed to be dead?

That's not even the whole list of weirdness with this. But oh, its a conspiracy.

Its hard to believe your government will pull some f'ed up shi** to make something happen that they want happening. The fact that history is filled with so much evidence of evil douchbaggery perfromed by the U.S. and it's allies, and more evidence of cover-ups and blackouts of said evil douchbaggery, i won't put anything past them, not even them sending a team to blast away some civilians. They do it in other countries, you think your so loved it cant happen here? Turn the tube of people, think for yourself, research. Once once you see all angles, then be free to ostracize people who says nutty things.

 

[bigman88]

I believe that it didnt happen as we are told; ill even go as far to say that governemt shooters took out those people, if they were even killed, in order to scare the crap out of us. Fire me...

 

[thiosk]

Tenure rocks. I want it.

 

[Sylveria]

No he should NOT be fired for his opinion. It's good that some institutions have a serious commitment to freedom of speech.

Hank Williams Jr. was fired from Monday Night Football for comparing Obama to Hitler.

Rashard Mendenhall was fired from his corporate sponsorships for suggesting 9-11 was an inside job

The Dixie Chicks lost their record deal for saying they were ashamed George W. Bush came from their state.

Freedom of Speech means the government can't punish you. Freedom of Speech /=/ Freedom from Consequence.

"Can't" and "Should not" are different things. Could be be fired? Sure. SHOULD he be? I, personally, do not believe so.

 

[SonicWaffle]

In short, I think we agree with each other. I just misinterpreted your first post.

Then I shall count this as a win, and reward myself with cakes!

Captcha: sour grapes. Not today, captcha!

 

[SonicWaffle]

Its amazing what's nutty conspiracy theory because your president yackign through the T.V. didn't tell you.

The problem with the majority of these conspiracy theories - including several of those you've posted - is that the conclusions drawn are lunatic. People tend to say things like "Oh, you think your government wouldn't hire Colombian death squads to patrol the streets of New York and assassinate random passers-by? Wake up, sheep!" and then never give any explanation of why the government would want to do these things.

Look at all your stuff about the US government infecting people with diseases, making them less healthy, killing their own citizens; can you tell me why the government - which is voted in by these same victims - would want to do this stuff without resorting to either "Because that's what governments do!" or some insanely convulted logic that leads to your pet peeve, ie the Sandy Hook shootings were an Obama conspiracy so he could ban guns? Because as yet, I've never spoken to a conspiracy theorist who could come up with plausible reasons for the conspiracies. Oh, they're really good at collating evidence, and some of that evidence is even interesting and may point to signs of conspiracy (I'm not naive enough to assume there aren't conspiracies) but they go and ruin it all by then making totally illogical jumps to a ridiculous conclusion.

"9/11 was an inside job, and the attack was carried out because lizard people blaaaaargh!"

 

[Giddi]

I didn't say this at all, so why don't you fix your quote.

I apologise. Somehow I screwed up the edit.

 

[barbzilla]

Its amazing what's nutty conspiracy theory because your president yackign through the T.V. didn't tell you.

The problem with the majority of these conspiracy theories - including several of those you've posted - is that the conclusions drawn are lunatic. People tend to say things like "Oh, you think your government wouldn't hire Colombian death squads to patrol the streets of New York and assassinate random passers-by? Wake up, sheep!" and then never give any explanation of why the government would want to do these things.

Look at all your stuff about the US government infecting people with diseases, making them less healthy, killing their own citizens; can you tell me why the government - which is voted in by these same victims - would want to do this stuff without resorting to either "Because that's what governments do!" or some insanely convulted logic that leads to your pet peeve, ie the Sandy Hook shootings were an Obama conspiracy so he could ban guns? Because as yet, I've never spoken to a conspiracy theorist who could come up with plausible reasons for the conspiracies. Oh, they're really good at collating evidence, and some of that evidence is even interesting and may point to signs of conspiracy (I'm not naive enough to assume there aren't conspiracies) but they go and ruin it all by then making totally illogical jumps to a ridiculous conclusion.

"9/11 was an inside job, and the attack was carried out because lizard people blaaaaargh!"

Once again you can't discount evidence just because the overall theory was wrong. If we did this we wouldn't have many of our scientific discoveries. So many things are created by accident while testing a theory that it should be plenty of proof that just because the theory is wrong, you can't discount everything you learned while testing it. Sure the over arching theory about the Hoax is crazy, but the evidence of a hoax is still there. Either address those issues or stop attacking the credibility of the "truther" (not you in particular, just a broad statement).

Also, didn't you know that the lizard people are responsible for three quarters of all the wars in the world since 1462?

 

[bigman88]

Its amazing what's nutty conspiracy theory because your president yackign through the T.V. didn't tell you.

The problem with the majority of these conspiracy theories - including several of those you've posted - is that the conclusions drawn are lunatic. People tend to say things like "Oh, you think your government wouldn't hire Colombian death squads to patrol the streets of New York and assassinate random passers-by? Wake up, sheep!" and then never give any explanation of why the government would want to do these things.

Look at all your stuff about the US government infecting people with diseases, making them less healthy, killing their own citizens; can you tell me why the government - which is voted in by these same victims - would want to do this stuff without resorting to either "Because that's what governments do!" or some insanely convulted logic that leads to your pet peeve, ie the Sandy Hook shootings were an Obama conspiracy so he could ban guns? Because as yet, I've never spoken to a conspiracy theorist who could come up with plausible reasons for the conspiracies. Oh, they're really good at collating evidence, and some of that evidence is even interesting and may point to signs of conspiracy (I'm not naive enough to assume there aren't conspiracies) but they go and ruin it all by then making totally illogical jumps to a ridiculous conclusion.

"9/11 was an inside job, and the attack was carried out because lizard people blaaaaargh!"

Why? Dude who the frig knows but them. I'm not discussing there reasons for the past, present, and future evil U.S. and friends do. Kill of most civilians in foreign territories to better control the region and increase U.S. and E.U. presence? Genetic cleansing? Weaken worldwide populations to better control there health options and resources? Dude, we can sit here an think of the possible reasons. But all i know is that when the U.S. and E.U. aid some greedy, savage dick in whatever African/ Middle-eastern/ South-American/ Pacific-island nation in over throwing whatever president who meant well for the country's people, which results in the slaughter of millions of both resistance and civilians alike, all i know is that there is no intrinsically good reason behind it.

Idi Ahmin? Paul Pot? Sadaam Hussein? Yep, just a few examples of horrible dictators who slaughtered millions and hoarded whatever for themselves. Who were these people funded, armed and and supported by? Good ol' U.S./E.U. What bussiness do they have of overseeing and ensuring a violent coup of a peaceful and productive government that bothered no one? IDK. What reason does E.U. corporations have of not only forcing there way into poor regions and kicking people of their land, but then heading over to where the people were forced to and spiking there water with chemicals resulting in a rapid death's over short time spans and ultimate population decline? IDK. Why dont they put it out on your T.V. for you to know about it when they get caught doing it via hard evidence, and they have no choice but to admit it? Well...

Look into history and its full of kings and monarchs making the people there slave bi***, one after the other, various countries. Think t's any different here? Nope. We just don't know it because we're surrounded by entertainment, and we have a hundreds of pages of laws that aint nobody going to read through and piece together to realize that the laws are solely designed to perpetually screw you over.

The reasons are not known, but the evidence is their to coem to a conclusion that shenanigans are afoot. And when anybody points out these shenanigans, they are consistently jailed/ end up dead/ forced to shut up/ fired/ threatened/ reputation shat on. And when they come out with material to back up these accusations of shenanigans, then they finally admit it, but you wont see it on the news now, will you?

The fact that you have to go on a damn computer and learn all these weird angles and oddities about the James Holmes and Adam Lanza shootings instead of plopping in front of the T.V. and being informed about it is already sketchy. Then sayign these things publicly gets you in trouble? This professor aint the first to get ridiculed for voicing the truth; he has a history full of journalists, scientists, politicians, law enforcement, activists, soldiers to keep him company there. And he wont be the last.

Oh yeah, and the lizard people running things? Too cooky to even approach, i must agree. But when you have the same consistent statues, carvings, paintings and descriptions of lizard people from various civilizations that never crossed paths at all, then that begs a little inquiry, dont you thin?

 

[Something Amyss]

Luckily, the context of the thread made it perfectly clear that the meaning we're using is 'ought', so thankfully we don't have to get bogged down in dissecting the multiple meanings of words.

Of course, "ought" can still apply in the arguments you were complaining about, so it's still a valid concern.

HUZZAH! People can actually have their own opinions!