Big 10 expansion talk heating up

[woot]

According to Websters definition, I would say SU has met the criteria of being a bigot. Why should I accept someone else's definition.

I should note though I do not consider him a bigot. His trolling personna is bigoted, I really don't think he actually is.

If we use the definition that LA Ute posted:

"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

I can't figure out how you included religion under that umbrella of protected traits without also including things like numerology, crystal healing, or bad grammar. That being the case, either bigotry is basically meaningless, since it's not bad to be bigoted against the belief that the earth is flat, or bigotry remains a useful concept by only applying to the things specifically mentioned in the definition, like racial and ethnic groups.

I maintain that both iPU and SU are correct, and it is not possible to agree on a definition. I remind once again that the dictionary only seeks to reflect common usage; it does not dictate it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

IIRC you are on record as agreeing that going after someones career is low brow. I did this once and got hammered for it.

You need to pay better attention. In the incident in question, you were using abusive language and going after someone's family.

Furthermore, I didn't go after your career. I was just teasing you and mocking your casual dismissal of systematic college rankings in favor of your own anecdotal experience. Ratings, smatings! By golly, you went to a catholic prep school.

Still waiting for you to refute that BYu is not a mediocre school.

Ha. Lingo would be proud of that response.

I think the US News rankings are reasonable. Why would I need to refute your assertions?

[pellegrino]

I went to the site and clicked I think the first box, the one that said undergraduate.

I try to keep it simple. Remember, I graduated from BYU and the U. My training does not let me deal with complicated things or do research.

See, that's why I love you. Like I said, it's complex. Look at the classifications to understand what they mean, then choose those that are most important to finding a list of adequate comparisons. When you just click the undergrad category (which is only a description of what kind of programs they offer) you pull up a ton of schools, even things like Roosevelt University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining Technology. I think BYU is far superior to those schools.

Add more criteria to the comparison and you'll see that BYU doesn't stack up with other research institutions. It's not to say that BYU faculty don't do some interesting and important research, it's the quantity of that research that distinguishes the big research schools. Compared with all of the PAC 10 schools, BYU's research is a drop in the bucket. If BYU really did a lot of research then it would show in the number of PHD programs they had and the number of PHD graduates they produced annually. They can't even compare with any of the PAC 10 universities.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

All the more reason not to hire you as a broker, then.

He's not a broker! Don't talk about his profession.

[byu71]

See, that's why I love you. Like I said, it's complex. Look at the classifications to understand what they mean, then choose those that are most important to finding a list of adequate comparisons. When you just click the undergrad category (which is only a description of what kind of programs they offer) you pull up a ton of schools, even things like Roosevelt University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining Technology. I think BYU is far superior to those schools.

Add more criteria to the comparison and you'll see that BYU doesn't stack up with other research institutions. It's not to say that BYU faculty don't do some interesting and important research, it's the quantity of that research that distinguishes the big research schools. Compared with all of the PAC 10 schools, BYU's research is a drop in the bucket. If BYU really did a lot of research then it would show in the number of PHD programs they had and the number of PHD graduates they produced annually. They can't even compare with any of the PAC 10 universities.

If what matters is being a research institution, I will readily admit, BYU does not stack up. If what matters is to let kids explore, make mistakes, learn from their mistakes and think outside the box, BYU does not stack up.

This may be silly of me and I know the good thinkers on this board are going to roll their eyes, but I see college as being for the following purposes.

1) to get a degree to get a job
2) to get a degree to go to another school to get an advanced degree to get
a job.

All the other stuff to me is secondary. If I had a knock on BYU it would be their primary job is to keep the kids in the fold and get em married within the faith.

However, as to what I consider the two top things a college is for, BYU stacks up very well.

[LA Ute]

All I can say is that in my world there are an awful lot of very successful, intelligent, creative, generous people who have degrees from both BYU and Utah.

[falafel]

All I can say is that in my world there are an awful lot of very successful, intelligent, creative, generous people who have degrees from both BYU and Utah.

Thank you for paying me that very gracious compliment.

[SeattleUte]

It seems to me that there are two different definitions of bigotry at play here. The one favored by iPU is one that includes the worship of various fictional entities in the category of born attributes like race or sex. The one favored by SU includes belief in zombies or fairies or magical books in the same category as astrology, psychic powers, or 2012 armageddonists . We "tolerate" them because it's important that thought not be censored, but we have no respect for their silly beliefs. Su would argue that this doesn't make him a bigot, you argue it does. I don't think the dictionary helps here.

I'm not sure what this means, but it's not bigotry to say, "You believe and have done some nonsensical and evil things, and therefore I don't want to associate with you." BYU has been a forum for racist expression, fired professors for expressing intellectual ideas because they are contrary to LDS dogma, blocked exhibition of artistic works of genius such as Rodn's John the Baptist on religious grounds, and waged a war ("Our Gettysburg") against gay civil liberties. It also associates its good name with FARMS, an admitted propaganda and religious apologetics machine.

The Pac 10 is an association of universities; the universities stand for some principles, some ideas; yes, they have their own values. They have every right to decline to associate with a university because of conflicting values. There was a time when Stanford announced that it refused to schedule BYU because of the Priesthood ban. Was that bigoted? If Kal fired one of its professors for suddenly publishing a book filled with unscientific racist flights of fancy would that be bigoted? Someone might accuse Kal of squelching freedom of expression. But it wouldn't be bigoted. Kal would be expressing a value. That is what the Pac 10 would be doing in refusing to admit BYU.

The best part of Dawkins' the God Delusion is when he goes on at length about this phenomenon that religions think they get a free pass from being honestly critiqued for believing and doing silly and evil things. Why should they? These are not immutable factors.

[SeattleUte]

If we use the definition that LA Ute posted:

"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

I can't figure out how you included religion under that umbrella of protected traits without also including things like numerology, crystal healing, or bad grammar. That being the case, either bigotry is basically meaningless, since it's not bad to be bigoted against the belief that the earth is flat, or bigotry remains a useful concept by only applying to the things specifically mentioned in the definition, like racial and ethnic groups.

I maintain that both iPU and SU are correct, and it is not possible to agree on a definition. I remind once again that the dictionary only seeks to reflect common usage; it does not dictate it.

I agree with this.

[LA Ute]

I maintain that both iPU and SU are correct, and it is not possible to agree on a definition. I remind once again that the dictionary only seeks to reflect common usage; it does not dictate it.

This strikes me as a specious argument. If you are suggesting the privatization of meaning, then I think that's the road to societal madness.

[woot]

This strikes me as a specious argument. If you are suggesting the privatization of meaning, then I think that's the road to societal madness.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone,"it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice,"whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--- that's all."

I've maintained this argument for years, and I think it's important. Sure it's messy, but the reality is that we often have different definitions for the same words, and that a great many arguments on this forum and everywhere else are caused by people using the same word to mean different things.

The definition that you posted includes a very general definition at the beginning that would label pretty much any religious person a bigot (religious people are certainly obstinately devoted to their opinions despite the lack of any reason to be so), and then a very specific definition at the end that seems to suggest that only born traits like race matter, which would not include religion.

So it seems obvious that the dictionary doesn't help much, despite our desire to give words unmistakable meanings.

[il Padrino Ute]

I'm not sure what this means, but it's not bigotry to say, "You believe and have done some nonsensical and evil things, and therefore I don't want to associate with you." BYU has been a forum for racist expression, fired professors for expressing intellectual ideas because they are contrary to LDS dogma, blocked exhibition of artistic works of genius such as Rodn's John the Baptist on religious grounds, and waged a war ("Our Gettysburg") against gay civil liberties. It also associates its good name with FARMS, an admitted propaganda and religious apologetics machine.

The Pac 10 is an association of universities; the universities stand for some principles, some ideas; yes, they have their own values. They have every right to decline to associate with a university because of conflicting values. There was a time when Stanford announced that it refused to schedule BYU because of the Priesthood ban. Was that bigoted? If Kal fired one of its professors for suddenly publishing a book filled with unscientific racist flights of fancy would that be bigoted? Someone might accuse Kal of squelching freedom of expression. But it wouldn't be bigoted. Kal would be expressing a value. That is what the Pac 10 would be doing in refusing to admit BYU.

The best part of Dawkins' the God Delusion is when he goes on at length about this phenomenon that religions think they get a free pass from being honestly critiqued for believing and doing silly and evil things. Why should they? These are not immutable factors.

You said that BYU gives you the heebee jeebees because it is too religious. That is an example of intolerance on your part. Being intolerant is bigotry.

It's not that difficult to understand, unless you're in denial about it.

[SeattleUte]

You said that BYU gives you the heebee jeebees because it is too religious. That is an example of intolerance on your part. Being intolerant is bigotry.

It's not that difficult to understand, unless you're in denial about it.

I said it gives them to the Pac 10.

[LA Ute]

So it seems obvious that the dictionary doesn't help much, despite our desire to give words unmistakable meanings.

We can agree to disagree. I think this is nonsense. At some point words have to mean something.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Sorry to keep flogging this thing, but Ray Ratto’s column in this morning’s SF Chronicle is the first local mention of this discussion that I’ve read in quite awhile. Ratto is the Chron’s principal football analyst, and he looks at things purely from a sports and rivalry angle, not as a social or political commentator. Thus, he doesn’t address the religion issue or the fig leaves of Sunday play and research.

Viewed solely from the perspective of sports and rivalries, he’s absolutely correct—BYU and Utah are the best, if not only, choice for expansion. The PAC-10 is comprised of five intense, local rivalries, in most cases dating back over 100 years. Utah and Colorado lack such a relationship, and one can’t simply create a rivalry suddenly out of thin air. When was the last time Utah even played Colorado, much less cared about the Buffs? And while Colorado has some quality teams, BYU athletics are superior to Colorado’s.

Utah should want BYU as its PAC-10 rival, if for no other reason that it gives Utah fans (who are a close second to BYU’s as the oddest and dorkiest fan base in the nation (a fact I cherish, not lament)) cover when the gentiles start mocking Mormondom. “No, you’re confusing us with those dweebs from Provo. By comparison we’re positively cosmopolitan.” That would be utter nonsense, of course, as it would be uttered by fans of a school whose president, head coach and predominant religion of its fanbase are all active LDS, but if it helps them feel better about themselves, I say have at it.

Will it happen? Almost certainly not, but for all the wrong reasons.