+ infinity

Nothing but bathroom level talk permeating the boards these days....

(Sorry had to channel my dad there when he caught me cussing up a storm....)

(06-09-2018 03:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am generally supportive of LBGT rights, and have a number of friends who are included in that number. They are all over the place on the bathroom issue, and most of my lesbian friends would agree with Lance--they don't want men in their bathrooms. But where we have some differences is that sometimes they want to consider ONLY the rights of the LBGT person and not the rights of anyone else.

If a trans person has a right to pee and poo somewhere, then he or she has that right. If the issue is doing it where they feel "comfortable" then we have rights in conflict--their right to be comfortable plus the rights of others to be comfortable. Whose rights count more and why?

Well said, and I completely agree.
The problem is that Lance's position on this matter doesn't arise as yours does, from objective, clear-headed rationality. Rather, it comes from religious fundamentalism/zealotry.
Basically, Lance = Dan Patrick.
Fundamentalism, whether Christian or Islamist, is completely anathema to the intellectual community's seeking of truth, and that's the reason for the backlash against him.

(06-10-2018 12:43 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(06-09-2018 03:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am generally supportive of LBGT rights, and have a number of friends who are included in that number. They are all over the place on the bathroom issue, and most of my lesbian friends would agree with Lance--they don't want men in their bathrooms. But where we have some differences is that sometimes they want to consider ONLY the rights of the LBGT person and not the rights of anyone else.

If a trans person has a right to pee and poo somewhere, then he or she has that right. If the issue is doing it where they feel "comfortable" then we have rights in conflict--their right to be comfortable plus the rights of others to be comfortable. Whose rights count more and why?

Well said, and I completely agree.
The problem is that Lance's position on this matter doesn't arise as yours does, from objective, clear-headed rationality. Rather, it comes from religious fundamentalism/zealotry.
Basically, Lance = Dan Patrick.
Fundamentalism, whether Christian or Islamist, is completely anathema to the intellectual community's seeking of truth, and that's the reason for the backlash against him.

I would bet that there are many of a certain political persuasion who would stridently defend the rights of a religious zealot, as long as the zealot's religion is not Christianity. As long as an Islamist zealot was not for killing infidels (and Lance has certainly not advocated killing people who have religious beliefs different from his), they would say he is entitled to his beliefs. This just sounds like another of the "let's apply one set of rules to one side and a different set to the guys we do not like."

(06-10-2018 12:43 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(06-09-2018 03:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am generally supportive of LBGT rights, and have a number of friends who are included in that number. They are all over the place on the bathroom issue, and most of my lesbian friends would agree with Lance--they don't want men in their bathrooms. But where we have some differences is that sometimes they want to consider ONLY the rights of the LBGT person and not the rights of anyone else.

If a trans person has a right to pee and poo somewhere, then he or she has that right. If the issue is doing it where they feel "comfortable" then we have rights in conflict--their right to be comfortable plus the rights of others to be comfortable. Whose rights count more and why?

Well said, and I completely agree.
The problem is that Lance's position on this matter doesn't arise as yours does, from objective, clear-headed rationality. Rather, it comes from religious fundamentalism/zealotry.
Basically, Lance = Dan Patrick.
Fundamentalism, whether Christian or Islamist, is completely anathema to the intellectual community's seeking of truth, and that's the reason for the backlash against him.

Is Fundamentalist Progressivism as a complete anathema as Fundamentalist Conservative?

There in no difference between political fundamentalism/zealotry and religious fundamentalism/zealotry. Except for the people that scream out that 'religious' zealotry has no place in any public discourse, I guess.....

I would say that denigrating any position as basically unable to and against 'seeking truth' is as stark an example of such hated zealotry itself in action.

(06-10-2018 12:43 PM)Barney Wrote:  . . . the intellectual community's seeking of truth . . .

If only! As noted in another thread, on political matters academia has proven itself -- over and over and over again -- to be an embarrassingly poor discerner of truth or practicer of truth-seeking. So much so that equating academia with "the intellectual community" is an insult to intellect.

Academia's systemic, decades-long failing in this regard is a more important problem than anything any Rice ballplayer has said or done.

(06-10-2018 12:43 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(06-09-2018 03:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am generally supportive of LBGT rights, and have a number of friends who are included in that number. They are all over the place on the bathroom issue, and most of my lesbian friends would agree with Lance--they don't want men in their bathrooms. But where we have some differences is that sometimes they want to consider ONLY the rights of the LBGT person and not the rights of anyone else.
If a trans person has a right to pee and poo somewhere, then he or she has that right. If the issue is doing it where they feel "comfortable" then we have rights in conflict--their right to be comfortable plus the rights of others to be comfortable. Whose rights count more and why?

Well said, and I completely agree.
The problem is that Lance's position on this matter doesn't arise as yours does, from objective, clear-headed rationality. Rather, it comes from religious fundamentalism/zealotry.
Basically, Lance = Dan Patrick.
Fundamentalism, whether Christian or Islamist, is completely anathema to the intellectual community's seeking of truth, and that's the reason for the backlash against him.

I think the difference between what you call the Lance/Dan Patrick position and mine is give me a “clean” rights bill without the bathroom provision and I would support it. I still wonder about why the bathroom provision was included.

(06-10-2018 01:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 12:43 PM)Barney Wrote:  . . . the intellectual community's seeking of truth . . .

If only! As noted in another thread, on political matters academia has proven itself -- over and over and over again -- to be an embarrassingly poor discerner of truth or practicer of truth-seeking. So much so that equating academia with "the intellectual community" is an insult to intellect.

Academia's systemic, decades-long failing in this regard is a more important problem than anything any Rice ballplayer has said or done.

Is there really any such thing as "political truth"?
I really think that academia's historical bent toward liberalism has nothing to do with what I'm trying to convey here.

(06-10-2018 08:04 PM)Barney Wrote:  I really think that academia's historical bent toward liberalism has nothing to do with what I'm trying to convey here.

I understood you to be suggesting that academia values "clear-headed, objective rationality" in political opinions, and disparages non-clear-headed, non-objective, non-rational opinions, because academia embodies "the intellectual community's seeking of truth."

But the fact is that on political maters, academia empirically does NOT value "clear-headed, objective rationality" and does NOT demonstrate "seeking of truth". Instead, on the whole, it displays not simply a "bent toward liberalism", but a readiness to embrace delusions without regard to fact, reason or sense -- as long as the delusions are leftist. The key failing therein is not the particular direction (some like it, perhaps including yourself; some don't), but that in embracing ANY direction without regard to fact, reason or sense, it has lost the credibility it might have had in trying to claim truth-seeking, inquiry, tolerance, or other intellectual virtues as actual "values" of universities on political matters.

So, while the political stance you object to may indeed be lacking in rationality, the claim that non-rational political opinions are distinctly unacceptable in academia cannot be taken seriously.

(06-10-2018 08:04 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 01:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 12:43 PM)Barney Wrote:  . . . the intellectual community's seeking of truth . . .

If only! As noted in another thread, on political matters academia has proven itself -- over and over and over again -- to be an embarrassingly poor discerner of truth or practicer of truth-seeking. So much so that equating academia with "the intellectual community" is an insult to intellect.

Academia's systemic, decades-long failing in this regard is a more important problem than anything any Rice ballplayer has said or done.

Is there really any such thing as "political truth"?
I really think that academia's historical bent toward liberalism has nothing to do with what I'm trying to convey here.

Your statement that unequivocally labels any and all religious fundamentalism as "anathema to the seeking of truth" is as close-minded and bigoted as the group you seemingly seek chastise.

(06-10-2018 09:06 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 08:04 PM)Barney Wrote:  I really think that academia's historical bent toward liberalism has nothing to do with what I'm trying to convey here.

I understood you to be suggesting that academia values "clear-headed, objective rationality" in political opinions, and disparages non-clear-headed, non-objective, non-rational opinions, because academia embodies "the intellectual community's seeking of truth."

But the fact is that on political maters, academia empirically does NOT value "clear-headed, objective rationality" and does NOT demonstrate "seeking of truth". Instead, on the whole, it displays not simply a "bent toward liberalism", but a readiness to embrace delusions without regard to fact, reason or sense -- as long as the delusions are leftist. The key failing therein is not the particular direction (some like it, perhaps including yourself; some don't), but that in embracing ANY direction without regard to fact, reason or sense, it has lost the credibility it might have had in trying to claim truth-seeking, inquiry, tolerance, or other intellectual virtues as actual "values" of universities on political matters.

So, while the political stance you object to may indeed be lacking in rationality, the claim that non-rational political opinions are distinctly unacceptable in academia cannot be taken seriously.

Wow George, you're putting all sorts of words in my mouth that I didn't say. The topic I was trying to address had NOTHING to do with politics!

(06-10-2018 09:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your statement that unequivocally labels any and all religious fundamentalism as "anathema to the seeking of truth" is as close-minded and bigoted as the group you seemingly seek chastise.

uh, no.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'."
Isaac Asimov

(06-10-2018 10:41 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 09:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your statement that unequivocally labels any and all religious fundamentalism as "anathema to the seeking of truth" is as close-minded and bigoted as the group you seemingly seek chastise.

uh, no.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'."
Isaac Asimov

I am sure that Asimov thought there is a 'cult of ignorance'.

Your pithy quote doesnt detract from your blanket and unambiguous statement about religion. Nor does it affect my comment on what that unequivocal statement of yours represents itself.

But please, exhibit some more of your very express anti-religious bigotry for all to see some more of.....

(06-08-2018 09:27 PM)Ranger Wrote:  This is simply a truly tragic situation.

Looks like you may have just floated the new University Slogan:

Rice- A Truly Tragic Situation

Wonder how that'll look on the new School Letterhead?

(06-11-2018 12:34 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:27 PM)Ranger Wrote:  This is simply a truly tragic situation.

Looks like you may have just floated the new University Slogan:

Rice- A Truly Tragic Situation

Wonder how that'll look on the new School Letterhead?

Unconventional Tragedy?

(06-11-2018 12:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:34 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:27 PM)Ranger Wrote:  This is simply a truly tragic situation.

Looks like you may have just floated the new University Slogan:

Rice- A Truly Tragic Situation

Wonder how that'll look on the new School Letterhead?

Unconventional Tragedy?

I'll give you that one, OO. I certainly never foresaw something to this degree. I suppose it might turn into an "educational moment" in the future for us and especially for others? Well, we are about education, after all. I guess that's one way to make sure athletics stays involved in the school mission.

(06-10-2018 10:26 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 09:06 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I understood you to be suggesting that academia values "clear-headed, objective rationality" in political opinions, and disparages non-clear-headed, non-objective, non-rational opinions, because academia embodies "the intellectual community's seeking of truth."
...

Wow George, you're putting all sorts of words in my mouth that I didn't say.

As I said in the summary at the beginning of my last post, I understood you to be suggesting a certain thing. If you were not suggesting that, and my summary was wrong, I apologize.

(06-10-2018 10:26 PM)Barney Wrote:  The topic I was trying to address had NOTHING to do with politics!

Barney, the topic you brought up is your opposition to a particular person's stance on a recent ballot measure. That is politics at is most basic. It has at least SOMETHING to do with politics!

(06-11-2018 12:34 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:27 PM)Ranger Wrote:  This is simply a truly tragic situation.

Looks like you may have just floated the new University Slogan:

Rice- A Truly Tragic Situation

Wonder how that'll look on the new School Letterhead?

Kind of like those old commercials for, was it Certs, a mint.

It's a candy mint.
No, it's a breath.

Rice Univeristy
It's a tragedy.
No, it's a farce.
No, a tragedy.
No, a farce.

It seems to me that any failures of leadership are not limited to the Athletic Department, but go all the way to the top.

In the 1960's, before the plethora of management and leadership books,
there was a book, Up the Organization, by I someone whom I believe was named Robert Townsend and I believe he was CEO of Avis. IIRC, he stated that no one should be a CEO of an organization for more than five years. A new CEO starts with energy and many ideas, but after a number of years, inertia and lethargy take over. I believe he also stated that no CEO should ever be allowed to name his own successor.

Perhaps those blanket statements do not apply in all cases, but they are interesting to consider.

A lot of this conversation probably belongs in the other thread about hiring the coach, but as someone nowhere close to this search, I must say that how this has gone really hasn't surprised me one bit. Watching the progression of the baseball program, and Rice athletics, from afar, I'm not surprised that it's something that any coach would automatically jump for. It's not where it was, and money to spend on the program is an open question.

Is this as fast as most fans wanted? No. But that's how it goes sometimes. At least this isn't the Tennessee football hire process. As someone pointed out earlier, it took Texas a month to hire their next baseball coach. And given the resource constraints going on, this doesn't surprise me one bit. (Nor why former major leaguers tied to Rice are being brought in - whether it's a formal interview for the position or not, I'm sure there is a fundraising component to any discussion (including what those players would want to see if they were in charge)).

So I'm not going to get worked up about someone's artificial deadline, even if it came from JK's mouth, and understand that this hire is not going to be easily done. He just better get it right, and hopefully with more funds and ideas to do the things necessary to keep Rice baseball great.

For the first time in 55 years, I am beginning to lose my optimism.