KSSioux Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 82SiouxGuy I did read the entire article and although I agree with you that there are folks on both sides of this, to let a few folks take down the majority opinion is not the way this country works. Studying something for "six" years does not obviously include getting a vote or a majority opinion to back up the issue. I can get many folks from MSNBC to say that when President Bush used the word "Crusade" to say that we were going after those who attacked us after 9/11, that it was offensive to Muslims. Just because some Muslims find that offensive, should we not tell Holy Cross to get rid of their nickname "Crusaders", because it is hostile or abusive to Muslims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Just because some Muslims find that offensive, should we not tell Holy Cross to get rid of their nickname "Crusaders", because it is hostile or abusive to Muslims? Don't give the NC$$ any more ideas ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 82SiouxGuy I did read the entire article and although I agree with you that there are folks on both sides of this, to let a few folks take down the majority opinion is not the way this country works. Studying something for "six" years does not obviously include getting a vote or a majority opinion to back up the issue. I can get many folks from MSNBC to say that when President Bush used the word "Crusade" to say that we were going after those who attacked us after 9/11, that it was offensive to Muslims. Just because some Muslims find that offensive, should we not tell Holy Cross to get rid of their nickname "Crusaders", because it is hostile or abusive to Muslims? You don't need a majority on civil rights type issues. However, it should be a significant number. They asked 9 tribes for input. 3 tribes gave input. The other 6 tribes gave no input. All 3 tribes that gave input said go ahead with the ban. It was supported by other Indian educational organizations. In the United States we normally get less than 50% of the voters at each election. But they are the ones that decide the election. The 50+% that don't participate don't have any input on the decision. At Spirit Lake, for the nickname issue, they had less than 20% of the voters participate. Yet that was the decision that they went with. I don't see much different in this situation. The people that were willing to give input on the the policy were the ones that the board listened to. Now a couple of other tribes are complaining. If they had a problem with the policy they should have said something during the original period, not speak up later when the matter is decided. And not everything is decided by some vote or majority opinion. We, as citizens, hire people to make decisions. We hire people that we believe are qualified to make those decisions. We hope that they are leaders. These people have more information on the issues than the average citizen. The decisions are not always what the majority wants, or what is popular. Running an organization of any kind on a popularity vote is a great way for that organization to fail. Leaders should lead, and should do what is best for the organization. And if the citizens decide that they are not doing a good job, the citizens can change the leaders and hire new people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSSioux Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 82SiouxGuy I understand about the numbers. The issue is that since the tribes did not respond that this was NOT an important issue to them. In a "civil rights" type of issue, if it was important to those supposedly effected, you would think they would speak up. A few folks (not tribes) brought this to the states attention, and I have not heard how they were harmed by the nicknames or logos usage. I will say I do not know whether there were any mascots used by any of the schools either. You bringing up the approximately 20% voters by Spirit Lake also proves my point about the issues relevance amongst the tribes. You must assume that those that did not vote were not passionate enough about this issue to care. That happens in every election. Some folks think that it means that they did not educate themselves enough on the issues to vote, and that may be the case. The issue I have is that the tribes themselves should be bringing up these issues as an organization, which they have not to the NCAA or the states that are taking these issues up. The tribes only have been forced to take stances once the issue was brought in focus and the original stances such as the pipe ceremony etc. were never accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 82SiouxGuy I understand about the numbers. The issue is that since the tribes did not respond that this was NOT an important issue to them. In a "civil rights" type of issue, if it was important to those supposedly effected, you would think they would speak up. A few folks (not tribes) brought this to the states attention, and I have not heard how they were harmed by the nicknames or logos usage. I will say I do not know whether there were any mascots used by any of the schools either. You bringing up the approximately 20% voters by Spirit Lake also proves my point about the issues relevance amongst the tribes. You must assume that those that did not vote were not passionate enough about this issue to care. That happens in every election. Some folks think that it means that they did not educate themselves enough on the issues to vote, and that may be the case. The issue I have is that the tribes themselves should be bringing up these issues as an organization, which they have not to the NCAA or the states that are taking these issues up. The tribes only have been forced to take stances once the issue was brought in focus and the original stances such as the pipe ceremony etc. were never accepted. You can't ASSUME anything, especially in political circles. You have to go with the information that you get. The tribes were given an opportunity to provide input. If they didn't care enough to give input then why do they care enough to give input now? The board had 3 tribes on the record as opposing Native American nicknames, and 0 tribes that went on the record in favor. That is a landslide victory. And even the tribes that are now against the ban now are not totally against it. They want to implement some kind of education component if a school wants to keep the nicknames. If the schools want to do the education then they could use the nickname. If they didn't add the education they would have to drop the name. So these tribes are just proposing a graduated ban, and mainly because they are going to have to change their names. They probably didn't expect that. It looks like a case of whose ox is getting gored, and they didn't realize that their ox was also going to get gored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 If they had a problem with the policy they should have said something during the original period, not speak up later when the matter is decided. Why'd the phrase "Spirit Lake" just pop into my head? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Why'd the phrase "Spirit Lake" just pop into my head? It ran through my mind as I was typing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Since when is a forum for discussion of sports logos a board for delusional people? What's the matter, you get mad and just lash out and anybody and everybody when you've been proven wrong? I have come to the conclusion that you're just a bitter and miserable person who spews hatred towards those who dare to have beliefs and values that are not a carbon copy of your own. Get over yourself and stop being such a dick for once in your life. ^^^^^^^ Speaking of lashing out when you're proven wrong ^^^^^^^ Dave, you still haven't listed those top schools that without athletics that UND could be like by dropping their athletic program. Remember, the ones that you claim exist but yet you still haven't been able to name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Since when is a forum for discussion of sports logos a board for delusional people? What's the matter, you get mad and just lash out and anybody and everybody when you've been proven wrong? I have come to the conclusion that you're just a bitter and miserable person who spews hatred towards those who dare to have beliefs and values that are not a carbon copy of your own. Get over yourself and stop being such a dick for once in your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Naming specific schools that don't have sports isn't the point and never has been, the fact that sports is not needed for a school to provide quality education is and always was the point. Get a clue and stop hiding behind that lame semantics argument. Really? Because here was your original argument... I get most of what you're saying but not the "best for everyone involved" part. How exactly is it best for everyone involved? It's not like student-athletes don't have choices to attend other schools, nobody is going to force them to come to North Dakota. The school could make a very big statement by just dropping athletics altogether and moving on as an institution of higher education. Some of the finest colleges in the country don't have sports. It seems to me that your point was that even if UND drops their athletics, they could still be like some of the finest colleges in the country. Yet you can't provide one. This isn't semantics, it is you being called out on a blatantly false statement. You say it is all about being one of the finest schools even without sports, yet you can't provide any of these schools. Who are some of these finest colleges in the country that don't have sports that you refer to that UND should aspire to be like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Since when is a forum for discussion of sports logos a board for delusional people? What's the matter, you get mad and just lash out and anybody and everybody when you've been proven wrong? I have come to the conclusion that you're just a bitter and miserable person who spews hatred towards those who dare to have beliefs and values that are not a carbon copy of your own. Get over yourself and stop being such a dick for once in your life. I didn't know you had such a forum either, but you found one. Good for you, you can go there after the nickname is retired. I guess there is a place on the Internet for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Again, you're arguing semantics (maybe because that is all you have to cling to). The fact of the matter is that athletics are not a requirement for a university to provide a quality education to students, but you keep avoiding that by hiding behind your little semantics argument. No, Dave. You made a blatantly false statement. You can't provide proof for that statement, so now you try to change the statement. There are no semantics involved. Again, here is your actual statement. Where is your proof that this is a true statement? If it isn't a true statement then your premise is false. Some of the finest colleges in the country don't have sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Clinging for dear life to that semantics argument. I guess that's to be expected when you are not capable of shooting down the fact that athletics are not a requirement for a university to provide a quality education to students. Naming specific schools that do not have athletics is beside the point. You made a specific statement. You can't prove the statement, because it is false. There is not a single quality college or university without athletics. That would tend to prove that athletics are an important part of having a quality educational program. Name an example to validate your position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Screaming for an "example" is just your way of avoiding the REAL point, which is that athletics are not a requirement for a university to provide a quality education to students. The fact that you refuse to address that point tells me that I have won the debate. Thanks for playing, better luck next time (you'll need it). The fact that you can't prove a simple statement that you made ends the debate right there. And the smilies don't help your cause. You might want to check on the rules for debating, you seem to have the same grasp of those rules as you have of the legal system. You are now a cartoon of yourself. Congratulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Screaming for an "example" is just your way of avoiding the REAL point, which is that athletics are not a requirement for a university to provide a quality education to students. The fact that you refuse to address that point tells me that I have won the debate. Thanks for playing, better luck next time (you'll need it). Run away! Run away, Dave! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Yeah, right... because we all know that sports is the reason why all of the best colleges are able to provide quality educations. I don't think you even realize how foolish you're making yourself appear with that insane idea that you actually appear to be hinting at. It looks like you would have failed logic, too, that is if you had gone to college. No Dave, we don't know that sports are the reason why the best colleges are able to provide quality educations. We also don't know that it isn't the reason why the best colleges are able to provide quality educations. There isn't enough information to determine either as a fact. We do know that all of the top colleges and universities have athletic programs. You said that they didn't. You were wrong. We can infer that having athletics helps provide a quality education, because all of them do, but the only way to prove it either way would be to eliminate athletics. Sane people don't want UND to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Screaming for an "example" is just your way of avoiding the REAL point, which is that athletics are not a requirement for a university to provide a quality education to students. The fact that you refuse to address that point tells me that I have won the debate. Thanks for playing, better luck next time (you'll need it). Seriously, you lost a long time ago. And we are all dumber for having watched you BS your way out of that corner you painted yourself into. You're either a bald face liar, on par with "Baghdad Bob," or you seriously misstated your original premise and what you intended it to mean and are now too juvenile to admit it. Because, it's very clear to everyone but you what your original statement actually said. Whether you intended it to convey something else is a mystery to the rest of us. You adjusted your statement to be more plausible in subsequent posts and stated it is what you'd been saying the whole time. Clearly, it was not. And all this means nothing in the end other than providing the rest is us with further evidence, Dave, that you are such a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I said that athletics are not required for schools to provide a quality education. I was right. The fact that most schools do have athletics is beside the point. Yeah, they have athletics, but that isn't why they're good schools. They would be good schools with or without athletics, and that's what you're just too stubborn to admit. I get most of what you're saying but not the "best for everyone involved" part. How exactly is it best for everyone involved? It's not like student-athletes don't have choices to attend other schools, nobody is going to force them to come to North Dakota. The school could make a very big statement by just dropping athletics altogether and moving on as an institution of higher education. Some of the finest colleges in the country don't have sports. Here are your 2 quotes with the important sentences highlighted. They are not the same. Not even close. Are you having trouble reading also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I see you're still avoiding the real issue, which is that athletics is not a requirement for providing a quality education. Still taking everything so literally, eh? I would expect that out of a 5 year-old, but for a college educated person such as yourself... well, you should be embarrassed. Poor Dave. Can't talk himself out of false statements he made, or false statements his heroes made, so he lashes out. Found one of those colleges yet? Just admit you were wrong and we will stop asking. It doesn't hurt, just admit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 You're the one who made the false claim, not me. You implied that a school needs an athletic dept. in order to provide a quality education. Your continued refusal to address the subject only draws more attention to the corner that you have painted yourself into. You made the original statement. It was wrong. What planet do you live on anyway? Or maybe a better question is what color is the sky in your world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 There is nothing wrong with my statement. A school does not need sports to provide a good education. Your obsession with asking for "examples" is a desperate attempt to deflect from the actual point. That wasn't your original statement. But you keep believing that, Dave. Maybe it will keep you warm at night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Athletics gives a large boost to student recruitment. Student recruitment results in higher enrollment. Higher enrollment results in more money (other than at NDSU and DSU, where the students from outside the tri-state area all get tuition waivers). More money results in the ability to provide a better education. I hope I made it clear enough for you LakesDave. Oh, and putting LOL and a smiley at the end of your post isn't fooling anyone. We all know being proven wrong makes you angry (one of the reasons I enjoy it so much). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I think I've finally figured it out. Dave doesn't mean what he actually posts. He doesn't want us to take his posts literally. In fact, most of his posts probably mean the opposite of what he posts. For instance, when he posts "We need to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname" what he really means is "We need to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname in our hearts when we retire it". So Dave is really in favor of retiring the nickname and we just didn't understand. Did you hear that everyone? DaveK thinks it is time to retire the nickname. Thanks for supporting the cause, Dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Athletics gives a large boost to student recruitment. Student recruitment results in higher enrollment. Higher enrollment results in more money (other than at NDSU and DSU, where the students from outside the tri-state area all get tuition waivers). More money results in the ability to provide a better education. I hope I made it clear enough for you LakesDave. Oh, and putting LOL and a smiley at the end of your post isn't fooling anyone. We all know being proven wrong makes you angry (one of the reasons I enjoy it so much). I'm pretty sure it isn't clear enough for him. He will make up whatever meaning he wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I guess that's to be expected when you are not capable of shooting down the fact that athletics are not a requirement for a university to provide a quality education to students. Naming specific schools that do not have athletics is beside the point. Dormitories are not required either, but most schools have them as a valuable benefit to the college experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.