Whoah, that's a bloody wide gap you have there, stretching from "doesn't hurt at all" to "should be imprisoned". The world is nowhere near that polarised.
I think it would give me a good perspective on the comment author's mindset, which is why I am curious.
But do you, vacri, see a huge gap between completely destroying a professor's life, i.e. forcing them to resign their position, give up their salary, tenure, and reputation (which is what these students were asking), and going to prison? Going to prison implies all of the former, it's just an extra debasement on the other penalties, although an extreme one.
You're mixing up your arguments. colmvp said that words can hurt - and in response, you're retorting that students are asking for imprisonment of a professor? What? How is that a rebuttal? Regardless of whether the students are successful or are laughed out of college, it has no bearing on colmvp's comment that words can hurt.
Basically you're trying to force a false dichotomy, where the options are "nothing at all" and "complete destruction of life". Someone's opinion on such a ridiculously polarised fantasy isn't going to grant any useful insights.
In contrary, the gap is non-existent. If I touch you, without even really hurting you, you can sue me and the police can arrest me. That is the extent that violence (actual violence) is discouraged in our society.
So you can hardly argue that speech is actually hurtful and that you shouldn't be punished for it.
