[Sioux-cia]

??? Isn't this case in a legal court of law? Is there a 'moral' court trying this case other than in the media?

Just because you believe something is morally wrong that doesn't mean I do. I would defy anyone to find 12 or even just 6 jurors who have identical 'morals' unless they're the Stepford wives. Again, just because a few people believe something is 'hostile or abusive' that doesn't make it so.

The case with the Sioux meeting in Bismarck is a clear example of the disparity amongst the Sioux 'leaders' and the rest of the tribe. The judicial committee has the majority of the tribe's approval to support the Fighting Sioux name and logo. The 'leaders' are against it. Have the people spoken? NO. A few men and women believe they know better than their constituents and have made a decision contrary to the what the majority wants.

[Gothmog]

Sioux-cia, on Jul 28 2007, 10:01 AM, said:

??? Isn't this case in a legal court of law? Is there a 'moral' court trying this case other than in the media?

Just because you believe something is morally wrong that doesn't mean I do. I would defy anyone to find 12 or even just 6 jurors who have identical 'morals' unless they're the Stepford wives. Again, just because a few people believe something is 'hostile or abusive' that doesn't make it so.

The case with the Sioux meeting in Bismarck is a clear example of the disparity amongst the Sioux 'leaders' and the rest of the tribe. The judicial committee has the majority of the tribe's approval to support the Fighting Sioux name and logo. The 'leaders' are against it. Have the people spoken? NO. A few men and women believe they know better than their constituents and have made a decision contrary to the what the majority wants.

No, the moral case against UND is not in a court of law.

Those are good points. But they are all related to the question "does this group really object", not "does UND have the right to use its nickname and logo if the members of that group object."

[Sioux-cia]

Gothmog, on Jul 28 2007, 09:22 AM, said:

...."does UND have the right to use its nickname and logo if the members of that group object."

How many members have to object? 1%/20%/100%? Scientific polls not linked to any institution have already proven that the majority of Native Americans do not object to Native American names and logos for sports teams. What more do you want?

I have to go now. I have to pick up some items for friends. I'll be driving past Red Mesa High School home of the Redskins. I'm going to a flea market in Shiprock home of the Chieftains. At the flea market, the majority of the vendors Native Americans, I'll be assailed by blankets, tee-shirts, etc. of the two favorite NFL teams (my observation only based on clothing and bumper stickers) in the Four Corners area, the Redskins and the Raiders.

Later..........

[PCM]

Gothmog, on Jul 28 2007, 10:22 AM, said:

Those are good points. But they are all related to the question "does this group really object", not "does UND have the right to use its nickname and logo if the members of that group object."

You are the one introducing "rights" into the issue which is a legal concept.

The tribes have every right to object to UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname. But they have no right to stop UND from using a word and images in the public domain that the tribes themselves use to promote their athletic teams and other activities. If such a right existed, the courts would have ruled against UND long ago.

If UND finds the tribes' arguments compelling and decides that ending the use of the nickname and logo are in the best interest of the university, then UND has the right to do so. It also has the right to reject the arguments if they're unconvincing or unreasonable.

You believe the Fighting Sioux nickname is morally wrong, even though the vast majority of American Indians have no problem with the word "redskin" being used as a sports team name. Is it possible that what you consider "morally right" is simply your opinion and that there is no true right or wrong answer?

[Gothmog]

PCM, on Jul 28 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 28 2007, 10:22 AM, said:

Those are good points. But they are all related to the question "does this group really object", not "does UND have the right to use its nickname and logo if the members of that group object."

You are the one introducing "rights" into the issue which is a legal concept.

The tribes have every right to object to UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname. But they have no right to stop UND from using a word and images in the public domain that the tribes themselves use to promote their athletic teams and other activities. If such a right existed, the courts would have ruled against UND long ago.

If UND finds the tribes' arguments compelling and decides that ending the use of the nickname and logo are in the best interest of the university, then UND has the right to do so. It also has the right to reject the arguments if they're unconvincing or unreasonable.

You believe the Fighting Sioux nickname is morally wrong, even though the vast majority of American Indians have no problem with the word "redskin" being used as a sports team name. Is it possible that what you consider "morally right" is simply your opinion and that there is no true right or wrong answer?

Think about what you're saying!

Do you really want to live in a world where there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions, and public offiicals have the right to accept or reject any argument they find unconvincing?

[GeauxSioux]

Of course no one wants to live in a world where there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. So who gets to decide what is morally right and wrong, a vocal minority of a minority, the federal government, the NCAA or the people of the country? According to the polls Sioux-cia quoted most Native Americans are not against the name. Are we to kowtow to a few malcontents or support the views of the many?

[sioux7>5]

Gothmog, on Jul 27 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

sioux7>5, on Jul 27 2007, 05:43 PM, said:

No I do not think we have lost our perspective. I think you lost your perspective. The NCAA is not courageous they are bullies. You have to stand up to them and when possible knock them flat on their asses. Bullies will back down or get a beat down if you stand up to them. I am so glad that UND has decided to stand up to the NCAA, and say that you are not going to shove your PC thinking down our throats. The NCAA needs to shut up and go back to scheduling games and stay out of social engineering.

Gee, that sure sounds like someone who has lost all perspective.

No I have not lost my perspective. I do not understand why you would so that. I just think that the UND is doing the right thing and fighting for what they believe is right. I hope everyday that UND wins. By the way they have permission from a tribe and a resolution in place. So is that not enough for you, or do you think that everyone had to agree with it or UND should not be able to use the name? Because if you think that way, this country on a lot of subjects would be in a lot of trouble.

[Chewey]

A lot about "public morality" is legislated rather than crammed down by runaway bandwagons of PC "moralists." If use of native names is so galling to so many people, why haven't those people contacting their legislators to stop it. Legislators will do anything to stay in office. But there are two problems: 1.) Only a very few people object to the use of indian nicknames; and 2.) race-based limitation on freedom of speech (like PCM indicated) and the use of such terms in the public domain.

[PCM]

Gothmog, on Jul 28 2007, 11:30 AM, said:

Think about what you're saying!

Do you really want to live in a world where there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions, and public offiicals have the right to accept or reject any argument they find unconvincing?

What I want is to live in a nation in which my constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression isn't trampled by your invented right to be offended.

And public officials? Do you honestly believe that they are the only ones who are unconvinced by the arguments of the easily offended? UND isn't suing the NCAA because a few public officials are stubborn or decided it would be a fun thing to do. It's being done because UND students and alumni - not to mention a majority of North Dakotans (and possibly even American Indians) - believe it's the right thing to do.

This post has been edited by PCM: 28 July 2007 - 07:24 PM

[Goon]

PCM, on Jul 28 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 28 2007, 11:30 AM, said:

Think about what you're saying!

Do you really want to live in a world where there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions, and public offiicals have the right to accept or reject any argument they find unconvincing?

What I want is to live in a nation in which my constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression isn't trampled by your invented right to be offended.

And public officials? Do you honestly believe that they are the only ones who are unconvinced by the arguments of the easily offended? UND isn't suing the NCAA because a few public officials are stubborn or decided it would be a fun thing to do. It's being done because UND students and alumni - not to mention a majority of North Dakotans (and possibly even American Indians) - believe it's the right thing to do.

As ussual, PCM is the voice of Reason.

[Teeder11]

Goon, on Jul 29 2007, 07:02 PM, said:

PCM, on Jul 28 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 28 2007, 11:30 AM, said:

Think about what you're saying!

Do you really want to live in a world where there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions, and public offiicals have the right to accept or reject any argument they find unconvincing?

What I want is to live in a nation in which my constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression isn't trampled by your invented right to be offended.

And public officials? Do you honestly believe that they are the only ones who are unconvinced by the arguments of the easily offended? UND isn't suing the NCAA because a few public officials are stubborn or decided it would be a fun thing to do. It's being done because UND students and alumni - not to mention a majority of North Dakotans (and possibly even American Indians) - believe it's the right thing to do.

As ussual, PCM is the voice of Reason.

And as "ussual," you can't spell very well. Go Fighting Sioux!

[Sioux-cia]

PCM, on Jul 28 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

What I want is to live in a nation in which my constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression isn't trampled by your invented right to NOT be offended.

Fixed your post, .

No where is it written that you or I have the right to not be offended. That's the crux of this whole thing isn't it? There are some people who are offended by the use of Native American names and logos for sports teams. I'm offended by some 'so-called' religions, some musical lyrics, by my neighbors intolerance of certain minorities, etc. I don't have any legal or moral rights that can make them change to what I want them to be. They also don't have any right to change anything about me or mine. That's America and that's why we live here and not in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, etc.

[Gothmog]

PCM, on Jul 28 2007, 03:30 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 28 2007, 11:30 AM, said:

Think about what you're saying!

Do you really want to live in a world where there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions, and public offiicals have the right to accept or reject any argument they find unconvincing?

What I want is to live in a nation in which my constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression isn't trampled by your invented right to be offended.

And public officials? Do you honestly believe that they are the only ones who are unconvinced by the arguments of the easily offended? UND isn't suing the NCAA because a few public officials are stubborn or decided it would be a fun thing to do. It's being done because UND students and alumni - not to mention a majority of North Dakotans (and possibly even American Indians) - believe it's the right thing to do.

Fine, you see this as your right to be offend whomever you choose. While I see it as your duty not to offend others unnecessarily. In the end, I'd have to support your constitutionally guaranteed right to behave as badly as you wish.

Personally, I'd much rather live in a world where everyone is treated with respect and dignity, and the wishes of an oppressed minority are respected. But that's just me, you may not agree.

[Diggler]

I didn't realize Mother Theresa had any children until just now. Gothmog, you do her proud.

[sioux7>5]

Gothmog, on Jul 29 2007, 08:57 PM, said:

PCM, on Jul 28 2007, 03:30 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 28 2007, 11:30 AM, said:

Think about what you're saying!

Do you really want to live in a world where there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions, and public offiicals have the right to accept or reject any argument they find unconvincing?

What I want is to live in a nation in which my constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression isn't trampled by your invented right to be offended.

And public officials? Do you honestly believe that they are the only ones who are unconvinced by the arguments of the easily offended? UND isn't suing the NCAA because a few public officials are stubborn or decided it would be a fun thing to do. It's being done because UND students and alumni - not to mention a majority of North Dakotans (and possibly even American Indians) - believe it's the right thing to do.

Fine, you see this as your right to be offend whomever you choose. While I see it as your duty not to offend others unnecessarily. In the end, I'd have to support your constitutionally guaranteed right to behave as badly as you wish.

Personally, I'd much rather live in a world where everyone is treated with respect and dignity, and the wishes of an oppressed minority are respected. But that's just me, you may not agree.

What argument are you going to use next. My personal favorite is when people give the" if even one person is offended then you have to change it". No it means that people not to stop looking for reasons to be offended. Anyone can be offended by anything if they want to be. My wife is Irish and thinks Notre dame should change there name, Gothmog are you going to back that?

[Gothmog]

Diggler, on Jul 29 2007, 09:10 PM, said:

I didn't realize Mother Theresa had any children until just now. Gothmog, you do her proud.

How you're perceived is usually a matter of who you're standing next to.

[star2city]

Gothmog, on Jul 29 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

Fine, you see this as your right to be offend whomever you choose. While I see it as your duty not to offend others unnecessarily.

For a civilization to be functional, citizens must chose not to take offence when none is intended.

NASCAR offends me, public flatulence offends me, low class Bison fans offend me, the NY Yankees spending offend me, cliques offend me, selfishness offends me, slow drivers offend me when I'm in a hurry, impatient driver's offends me when I'm looking for a turnoff, lazy people offend me, workaholics offend me: let's just ban them all so I don't get offended. After all, the world was meant to be centered around me.

[Gothmog]

star2city, on Jul 29 2007, 09:23 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 29 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

Fine, you see this as your right to be offend whomever you choose. While I see it as your duty not to offend others unnecessarily.

For a civilization to be functional, citizens must chose not to take offence when none is intended.

NASCAR offends me, public flatulence offends me, low class Bison fans offend me, the NY Yankees spending offend me, cliques offend me, selfishness offends me, slow drivers offend me when I'm in a hurry, impatient driver's offends me when I'm looking for a turnoff, lazy people offend me, workaholics offend me: let's just ban them all so I don't get offended. After all, the world was meant to be centered around me.

But we're not talking about bad drivers or sports rivals, are we? We're talking about an historically oppressed group, one of the most oppressed in world history.

[Chewey]

Gothmog, on Jul 29 2007, 08:57 PM, said:

PCM, on Jul 28 2007, 03:30 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 28 2007, 11:30 AM, said:

Think about what you're saying!

Do you really want to live in a world where there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions, and public offiicals have the right to accept or reject any argument they find unconvincing?

What I want is to live in a nation in which my constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression isn't trampled by your invented right to be offended.

And public officials? Do you honestly believe that they are the only ones who are unconvinced by the arguments of the easily offended? UND isn't suing the NCAA because a few public officials are stubborn or decided it would be a fun thing to do. It's being done because UND students and alumni - not to mention a majority of North Dakotans (and possibly even American Indians) - believe it's the right thing to do.

Fine, you see this as your right to be offend whomever you choose. While I see it as your duty not to offend others unnecessarily. In the end, I'd have to support your constitutionally guaranteed right to behave as badly as you wish.

Personally, I'd much rather live in a world where everyone is treated with respect and dignity, and the wishes of an oppressed minority are respected. But that's just me, you may not agree.

Maybe its up to others not to create things and to not be offended unnecessarily. Your logic is twisted. Everyone is offended some of the time. I'm offended that the PC nuts are trying to ramrod this garbage down everyone's throats. Isn't it your duty and theirs not to offend me then? Your "respect and dignity" evidently applies only to a minority of a minority and "everyone" evidently only contemplates that minority of a minority. How myopic. This is just the sort of twisted, sanctimonious equivocation that is employed by the NC00 and the elitist, holier than thou, self-proclaimed "advocates" that support the NC00. Hie thee to a plastic bubble.

[Chewey]

star2city, on Jul 29 2007, 09:23 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jul 29 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

Fine, you see this as your right to be offend whomever you choose. While I see it as your duty not to offend others unnecessarily.

For a civilization to be functional, citizens must chose not to take offence when none is intended.

NASCAR offends me, public flatulence offends me, low class Bison fans offend me, the NY Yankees spending offend me, cliques offend me, selfishness offends me, slow drivers offend me when I'm in a hurry, impatient driver's offends me when I'm looking for a turnoff, lazy people offend me, workaholics offend me: let's just ban them all so I don't get offended. After all, the world was meant to be centered around me.

Exactly! It's a control issue at its core. It's entirely narcissistic and completely lacking in emotional integrity. "Respect," "Dignity," alleged nescience with respect to those who disagree -- all punch lines only. They make for good hyperbole though.