Notre Dame Football 2015 Off-Season Preview: Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets

[Boomergump]

Should this thread move to the lounge? I think we have lost our way a little. There isn't really any football being discussed.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You either shouldn't use words you don't understand or post from ignorance. My post included neither hyperbole nor calumny.

It absolutely did. You used the phrase "African slave trade" which has a quite specific meaning as it refers to what is commonly understood as the racial enslavement of black Africans, also referred to as the Atlantic slave trade. Then you conjoined this with a claim that either some or many popes "sanctioned" that trade. That claim is simply false and given the nature of the imputation you are making it is also calumnious. If it wasn't then you wouldn't take a posture of moral superiority and preening with your "smh" shorthand.

But this is not the place to debate your misleading interpolation of the history of African slavery as regards papal declarations or comments upon it (be they ordinary or extraordinary).

If you care to debate the relevant historical documents and their contexts and scope then I can possibly find the time via pm or off-site. Some of those documents include: Sicut Dudum; Dum Diversas; Romanus Pontifex; Sublimus deus; and In supremo apostolatus. It would be helpful if you read Latin but not absolutely required.

But of course none of this fits on a thread about a football game. The fact that it got brought up is pretty telling though as to how anti-Catholicism seems to be the "last acceptable" form of bigotry. Or is it still funny to mock Mormons? I can't recall.

 

[AE 87]

It absolutely did. You used the phrase "African slave trade" which has a quite specific meaning as it refers to what is commonly understood as the racial enslavement of black Africans, also referred to as the Atlantic slave trade. Then you conjoined this with a claim that either some or many popes "sanctioned" that trade. That claim is simply false and given the nature of the imputation you are making it is also calumnious. If it wasn't then you wouldn't take a posture of moral superiority and preening with your "smh" shorthand.

But this is not the place to debate your misleading interpolation of the history of African slavery as regards papal declarations or comments upon it (be they ordinary or extraordinary).

If you care to debate the relevant historical documents and their contexts and scope then I can possibly find the time via pm or off-site. Some of those documents include: Sicut Dudum; Dum Diversas; Romanus Pontifex; Sublimus deus; and In supremo apostolatus. It would be helpful if you read Latin but not absolutely required.

But of course none of this fits on a thread about a football game. The fact that it got brought up is pretty telling though as to how anti-Catholicism seems to be the "last acceptable" form of bigotry. Or is it still funny to mock Mormons? I can't recall.

Yeah, if you read Pontifex Romanus as not sanctioning the perpetual slavery of Africans and their descendants, given the historical evidence that this is what then happened, then I'm sure time would not allow a fruitful conversation.

Fwiw, I'm not advocating for bigotry, but for adults in 2015 America to not see "fish eater" etc as sign of some impending Protestant inquisition of Catholic heretics. It's a silly childish slur at the level of dwags calling Techies nerds.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

Should this thread move to the lounge? I think we have lost our way a little. There isn't really any football being discussed.

Yes. I'll get it back on topic.

Anyone notice the discrepancy on the OL? Think he had two probable starters at RG? Had fromayan and knock at LT?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Shaq was a war daddy. Luckily we have Shamire and Brown to step up. Both look like they could be the next studs at guard. I expect production at that spot to drop a little. But overall the line should be about as good as last year. Great development for our program.

The ND Dline got a taste of elite Oline play from FSU last year and fared pretty well. I'm not sure what they lose or bring back.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Yeah, if you read Pontifex Romanus as not sanctioning the perpetual slavery of Africans and their descendants, given the historical evidence that this is what then happened, then I'm sure time would not allow a fruitful conversation.

Fwiw, I'm not advocating for bigotry, but for adults in 2015 America to not see "fish eater" etc as sign of some impending Protestant inquisition of Catholic heretics. It's a silly childish slur at the level of dwags calling Techies nerds.

The lack of a fruitful discussion would result from whether you want to maintain the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc lurking in your assertion of why we would not be able to have a fruitful discussion: "Romanus Pontifex sanctions perpetual slavery of Africans and their descendants because that is what "then" [really later] happened."

That bull discusses as just the ongoing (for what 600 years at that point?) wars of conquest of Muslim lands and the acceptance of the enslavemement of the defeated "infidels" from such wars. It does so in a specific short passage (meaning hardly the subject of the bull itself) in which it describes as just the Portuguese king subduing by war the Saracens, pagans and "enemies of Christ." So, as far as historical context this bull fits with that history of crusading and border wars between Europeans and Islamic peoples and does not fit the Atlantic slave trade and racial slavery that would arise roughly a century later. I think the history of popes and Islam is a mixed bag of decisions myself. Not all crusades were just wars (and rarely is any war actually executed in perfect justice) but they were not a constant and complete source of prudential error. I think it is probably a shame that those ancient forms of slavery were perpetuated for so long and that Nicholas V sanctioned them in this bull. But neither he nor any other pope ever sanctioned what we all know as having occurred to Africans (taken generically) through the Spanish, Portuguese, and British and French "discovery" and then colonization of the Americas. If anything one needs to try and come up with a determination of if there is an inconsistency or at least how to relate Eugene IV's Sicut dudum on the Portugeuse treatment of the Canary Islands in 1435 with his immediate successor Nicholas V's Romanus pontifex 20 years later.

I don't have any comment on a discussion of "fish eaters." It is obviously a religiously based slur. But it is also pretty defunct as seems to only ever really crop up in athletic contests with Notre Dame. Fans are going to try and say anything they can think of to attempt to insult the other team and its fans, so I don't see why anyone would take its usage to indicate an impending attack or even get particularly riled up.

Amusingly, in the U.S. the Friday abstinence is pretty defunct as a practice. So I would think many Notre Dame fans would not even understand why they are getting called a "fish eater" to begin with.

 

[AE 87]

The lack of a fruitful discussion would result from whether you want to maintain the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc lurking in your assertion of why we would not be able to have a fruitful discussion: "Romanus Pontifex sanctions perpetual slavery of Africans and their descendants because that is what "then" [really later] happened."

That bull discusses as just the ongoing (for what 600 years at that point?) wars of conquest of Muslim lands and the acceptance of the enslavemement of the defeated "infidels" from such wars. It does so in a specific short passage (meaning hardly the subject of the bull itself) in which it describes as just the Portuguese king subduing by war the Saracens, pagans and "enemies of Christ." So, as far as historical context this bull fits with that history of crusading and border wars between Europeans and Islamic peoples and does not fit the Atlantic slave trade and racial slavery that would arise roughly a century later. I think the history of popes and Islam is a mixed bag of decisions myself. Not all crusades were just wars (and rarely is any war actually executed in perfect justice) but they were not a constant and complete source of prudential error. I think it is probably a shame that those ancient forms of slavery were perpetuated for so long and that Nicholas V sanctioned them in this bull. But neither he nor any other pope ever sanctioned what we all know as having occurred to Africans (taken generically) through the Spanish, Portuguese, and British and French "discovery" and then colonization of the Americas. If anything one needs to try and come up with a determination of if there is an inconsistency or at least how to relate Eugene IV's Sicut dudum on the Portugeuse treatment of the Canary Islands in 1435 with his immediate successor Nicholas V's Romanus pontifex 20 years later.

I don't have any comment on a discussion of "fish eaters." It is obviously a religiously based slur. But it is also pretty defunct as seems to only ever really crop up in athletic contests with Notre Dame. Fans are going to try and say anything they can think of to attempt to insult the other team and its fans, so I don't see why anyone would take its usage to indicate an impending attack or even get particularly riled up.

Amusingly, in the U.S. the Friday abstinence is pretty defunct as a practice. So I would think many Notre Dame fans would not even understand why they are getting called a "fish eater" to begin with.

If you really want to discuss it, start a thread in the other forum.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Seriously, at some point you have to lift up your head from the nonsense and ask, "Am I really letting myself be offended by some stupid, childish name-calling?

The issue is whether or not something is offensive to someone else not whether or not I think it is offensive. That is the one thing about charges of PC that people seem to forget. I attended a game against Notre Dame in 1978, I believe it was. Tech was badly wanting revenge from a previous season beat down by Notre Dame, played fairly well on this day but Notre Dame was just the better team. For some reason Tech fans began to rain fish down out of the stands on the Notre Dame bench. It was really shameful and a a real embarrassment to the Institute. It got so bad that Tech players began to invite Notre Dame players to come sit on the bench with them. Those Tech players were not being PC, they were being gentlemen in the best Tech tradition.

 

[Skeptic]

The issue is whether or not something is offensive to someone else not whether or not I think it is offensive. That is the one thing about charges of PC that people seem to forget. I attended a game against Notre Dame in 1978, I believe it was. Tech was badly wanting revenge from a previous season beat down by Notre Dame, played fairly well on this day but Notre Dame was just the better team. For some reason Tech fans began to rain fish down out of the stands on the Notre Dame bench. It was really shameful and a a real embarrassment to the Institute. It got so bad that Tech players began to invite Notre Dame players to come sit on the bench with them. Those Tech players were not being PC, they were being gentlemen in the best Tech tradition.

I had never heard that story. What was the line about "the hot red eyes of the caveman" in such moments? That's really sad, but a great gesture by the GT players.

 

[AE 87]

The issue is whether or not something is offensive to someone else not whether or not I think it is offensive. That is the one thing about charges of PC that people seem to forget. I attended a game against Notre Dame in 1978, I believe it was. Tech was badly wanting revenge from a previous season beat down by Notre Dame, played fairly well on this day but Notre Dame was just the better team. For some reason Tech fans began to rain fish down out of the stands on the Notre Dame bench. It was really shameful and a a real embarrassment to the Institute. It got so bad that Tech players began to invite Notre Dame players to come sit on the bench with them. Those Tech players were not being PC, they were being gentlemen in the best Tech tradition.

I understand liberal fundamentalists feel the need to get on their moral high horses and lecture those who disagree while at the same time imposing their morality thru legislation.

Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm ignorant nor that I've forgotten anything.

The fact remains that adult men are complaining about hurt feelings. Smh

 

[JacketFromUGA]

I understand liberal fundamentalists feel the need to get on their moral high horses and lecture those who disagree while at the same time imposing their morality thru legislation.

Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm ignorant nor that I've forgotten anything.

The fact remains that adult men are complaining about hurt feelings. Smh

something something wussification of men

 

[augustabuzz]

The issue is whether or not something is offensive to someone else not whether or not I think it is offensive. That is the one thing about charges of PC that people seem to forget. I attended a game against Notre Dame in 1978, I believe it was. Tech was badly wanting revenge from a previous season beat down by Notre Dame, played fairly well on this day but Notre Dame was just the better team. For some reason Tech fans began to rain fish down out of the stands on the Notre Dame bench. It was really shameful and a a real embarrassment to the Institute. It got so bad that Tech players began to invite Notre Dame players to come sit on the bench with them. Those Tech players were not being PC, they were being gentlemen in the best Tech tradition.

Pepper offered to switch sides after ND coach Devine skipped a liquor bottle ( pint of Jim Beam, empty) across the field. It slid to rest a yard from our sideline and right in front of me. Devine didn't want to switch, preferring the theatrics.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The fact remains that adult men are complaining about hurt feelings.

I didn't hear anyone complaining about hurt feelings. I thought I heard a request to be respectful of others. I see no examples in human history of a culture collapsing because people learned to respect differences and be less coarse. I see plenty of examples that cut the other way though.

 

[AE 87]

I didn't hear anyone complaining about hurt feelings. I thought I heard a request to be respectful of others. I see no examples in human history of a culture collapsing because people learned to respect differences and be less coarse. I see plenty of examples that cut the other way though.

smh

 

[ATL1]

This thread either needs to be cleansed or moved.
I liked the original article too.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

To help get back on track a little.....

http://m.und.com/m/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/032215aaa.html

Here is a look at ND for next year. Golson is gone. Other than that it looks like they have to replace a LG and that's about it. RT expected to start started in their bowl game so has some experience. On D they have to replace a CB. They seem to be returning about everyone else.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

It's possible ND could be the best team we face next year. I expect both teams will be unbeaten heading into that game. Could be featured as a QB duel.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

To help get back on track a little.....

http://m.und.com/m/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/032215aaa.html

Here is a look at ND for next year. Golson is gone. Other than that it looks like they have to replace a LG and that's about it. RT expected to start started in their bowl game so has some experience. On D they have to replace a CB. They seem to be returning about everyone else.

Yeah, I think they look pretty tough. On another thread I predicted this as a loss for Tech.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Hope it's not a L....I'm planning to be there

 

[UgaBlows]

Good lord someone please hit this thread in the head and kill it