 |
"What's the trouble, Clark? The mad scientist always gets fired in the end." |
Posted on 10/19/2007 1:20:11 AM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee
As poster 30 said, the last thing the left wants is an open debate on racial differences because that is one debate they are going to lose big time. In fact, you can be pretty sure Watson’s position is closer to the truth simply because his position is never publicly debated openly. Watson’s opposition relies on censorship and intimidation which are the tactics of people who don’t have the truth on their side.
Of course he should. He "insulted" a politically protected group, not a group of worthless people like Christians.
The Dixie Chicks spouted off an opinion. There's no scientific evidence one way or another on the issue in question. Is there scientific data on whether or not one should be ashamed to be from the same state as President Bush? A boycott was launched by people who disagreed with that opinion.
In the case of Watson, he espoused a view that has support in the scientific literature. If people have contrary evidence, they're free to present it. Just as Larry Summers' critics were free to present studies refuting the idea that there's a male genetic predisposition to perform on average at higher levels of spatial reasoning. Of course, no such studies were presented, and none will be presented in the case of Watson.
Instead, we'll get Steven Rose coming forward and assuring us that the majority of the scientific community will distance themselves from Watson's views, which of course they will after seeing what's happening to him. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Watson appears to be a somewhat acid-tongued individual, but then so was Imus. Anyone doubting the power of Political Correctness (soft totalitarianism) to bring even the most arrogant person to his knees need only look at the once-boastful Imus' pathetic grovel on the racist Al Sharpton's radio show. Watson's following the same course. He's apologized, of course. It'll do him about as much good as it did Imus and Larry Summers.
If you want to play the debate that way, then I guess you support the Dixie Chicks too and we must all listen to their music because to do otherwise would diminish their freedom of speech. Poppycock!
Anyone can say anything they want but must then be personally responsible for the consequences. NO ONE ELSE should be forced to listen or to bear the weight of any consequences. Violate a copyright on this board, and our founder shares in the liability. It is his forum and he is completely within his right to nuke any one of us if we violate his terms. Does that stop your free speech? No, you have the freedom to build your own FR. Of course, your ISP would still have something to say.
Consider Watson's statement but let's take some of the heat out of it. Let's pretend he said the sky is chartreuse, no - pink because I don't think I can spell chartreuse. Making the statement as a scholar and a chancellor gets people to thinking "who is running that joint? a pink sky guy? I don't want my research grants going there." An absurd example but it should illustrate Cold Harbor's stake in the issue. To support Watson's free speech rights, should Cold Harbor have to stand by and absorb the consequences? No, of course not. You cannot put that obligation on someone else. That is not what the Constitution says. I think it was Justice Thomas who made an eloquent statement about how a Right as in the Bill of Rights cannot by definition impose an obligation on another.
Now consider the Chicksie Dicks. Should a radio station be forced to play their records if listeners will turn off the station as a result? After all, it is almost like they lose their job if their music can't compete in the marketplace. Oh, but they have other paths to follow for success? Well, so doesn't Watson. Remember, too, that the radio stations that don't play the Chicks might lose the fans who support their inane commentary. Cold Harbor could lose grant money from institutions that agree with Watson, publicly or privately. Harvard lost stature IMHO by firing Larry. They demonstrated their true colors. That was the price (extremely minuscule) they paid from me. But perhaps it did stop an endowment from someone with a little more wealth.
The same deal for Rush's remarks. Shouls ESPN be forced to lose their Black audience because Rush chose to say what he did? How can you (or he) put that obligation on them. Their subsequent action DID have a consequence, though, because we all formed an opinion by their action (speech) and ESPN stood to lose their White conservative audience. They made the judgment call and it was theirs to make. I think they were wrong but I cannot force them (or save them) from the consequences. Actually, I have a theory as to Rush's statement, have posted it elsewhere, and think the whole thing was theater. nevertheless, why should ESPN have to carry the weight for Rush no matter what he said? What if he used the N word as part of his statement? whould they still be in the wrong under your rules? No? then what is different, the "quality" of the speech? Then you get into a real slippery slope argument. No, ESPN was well within their rights as are we to still be griping about it.
Watson could have stated his theory in many other ways that would have been less inflammatory yet made the same point. He chose how he wanted to say what he did and must personally bear the full brunt of the consequences. The only way Cold Harbor would be in the wrong is if they pre-approved his remarks but not back away from him in the aftermath.
Believe me, there won’t be any open debate on this subject, for obvious reasons.
Isn’t it interesting how commentators such as Hitchens and Dawkins are all over the place nowadays pushing militant atheism? No one is censoring them, nor should they. Instead, people are challenging them to debate, and there have been some debates between these outspoken atheists and Christians.
Dawkins seems to be one of the most in-demand speakers at campuses and media forums. Can you imagine him being made to grovel and apologize for saying that religion is responsible for most of the evil in the world, or for saying that Christians are largely dupes who are easily manipulated? For that matter, Watson’s been an outspoken atheist for a long time, and it never hurt his career.
I’m sorry, I don’t count scamming people as being smart. Also, this is so statistically small a sample, I dont’ even count it.
And I would never claim there are no stupid people on this continent or no smart ones on the continent of Africa. One of our best friends emigrated from Nigeria and he was brilliant.
Why don't you rephrase what he was trying to say and see if you can do it without being called a racist?
Why did it take so long for Colorado to fire Ward Churchill? And even then, they didn’t fire him for his outlandish comments, but for academic fraud and plagiarism.
Our colleges are filled with radical professors who spew out hateful venom every day and are never fired or suspended for it. That’s because they spew venom at the right people, from the Harvard prof (Ignatiev, I believe) who wants to exterminate the white race, to the clown at Rutgers who wants to see U.S. servicemen die in a million Mogadishus, to the 89 Duke faculty members who declared the LaCrosse players guilty for being white.
But let one of these guys do an interview or give a speech where they make an off-the-cuff remark about how Detroit sank into oblivion after the white population left, and their head will be on the chopping block. They’ll be hauled before the media, made to apologize, and then fired.
You know.....at some point...stereotype segways right into reality...
Interview with Arthur Jensen, part I:
http://amren.com/ar/1992/08/index.html
Interview with Arthur Jensen, part II:
http://amren.com/ar/1992/09/index.html
- John
As a general rule white people have lighter skin than black people.
I don't know why that is.
Lest anyone be confused, my intent with my posts to this thread is not to support or refute any of the statements by Watson, Rush, the Chicksies, etc., but rather to comment that Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with freedom from consequences.
And, by the way, isn't Watson a British subject making his remarks in the UK? IIRC, they have not adopted the US Constitution, marking 231 years of being wrong - but I digress.
(Comment Removed by Clemenza)
What were the consequences to those commie professors at Duke that wanted to railroad the defendants?
|
"What's the trouble, Clark? The mad scientist always gets fired in the end." |
I believe Ward Churchill was ultimately fired for being a phony, not for his opinions. Perhaps I have that wrong. I realize his opinions probably had alot to do with it, but the fact that he was an native-american poser with questionable credentials, really did him in.
Watson made Cold Spring Harbor what it is. Now the midgets decide he’s an embarrassment?
Since he was the closer associate to Franklin, it was more up to him to cite her contribution which he did on the fifth page of his address while also describing her untimely death prior to the 1962 recognition.
Wilkins concluded the lecture with thanks to others that played a part and said:
During the past twelve years, while studying molecular structure of nucleic acids, I have had so much help from so many people that all could not be acknowledged properly here. I must, however, thank the following: Sir John Randall, for his long-standing help and encouragement, and for his vision and energy in creating and directing a unique laboratory; all my co-workers at various times over the past twelve years; first, Raymond Gosling, Alex Stokes, Bill Seeds, and Herbert Wilson, then Bob Langridge, Clive Hooper, Max Feughelman, Don Marvin, and Geoffrey Zubay; and at present, Michael Spencer, Watson Fuller, and Struther Arnott, who with much ability, skill and persistence (often through the night) carried out the X-ray, molecular model-building, and computing studies; my late colleague Rosalind Franklin who, with great ability and experience of X-ray diffraction, so much helped the initial investigations on DNA;So, as Wilkins was more her associate and in debt to her it is only right that he, rather than Watson, cites her in his lecture.
There’s a eugenics movement to eliminate women? That would be rather self-defeating, wouldn’t it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.