39 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

Holy crap, just made some wagyu steak...my life is forever changed.

care to elaborate?

 

37 minutes ago, austinfan said:

It's also important to put slavery in perspective.  When the Constitution was written, I don't think any country had yet to abolish slavery, even when the British abolished the slave trade in 1807 (a fun movie that simplifies the British politics is "Amazing Grace") they didn't abolish slavery until 1833. And so forth. There were millions of European and Ottoman slaves, African slaves, Russian Serfs, etc. Arabs retained African slaves until the 20th century. So do you expect the Founding Fathers to abolish slavery in the North and create a slave country in the South (since the Southern colonies made it clear they wouldn't accede to such a union), and create the potential for continuous conflict between the two and Europeans interfering and maybe destroying both?

In that context, even contemplating the abolition of slavery was a big step forward - it's dangerous to make judgements about people in the past, they lived in a different world than us, constant warfare, high mortality, etc. Scratch your finger and die from tetanus. You can see the settling of NA as "Western Imperialism" if you're an ideologue, but if you're an honest historian, how does it differ from the Great migrations from Eurasia, including the initial one that slaughtered the Neolithic settlers of Western Europe. Wave after wave have swept across the landscape for thousands of years, slaughtering millions. Some Europeans flocked to America as fortune hunters, but most settlers were hungry for land because that's how you feed your family. In land starved Europe, even relatively prosperous farmers weren't that far from the edge of famine in a bad year or two. And if it's between securing the future for your children or eliminating those pesky natives, what choice would you make? So where those white settlers unique or just another migration that overwhelmed the existing inhabitants of the real estate in question.

Yes ,and doesn't excuse justify or minimize slavery and genocide.

If we continue to excuse and minimize past atrocities what's to stop us from justifying committing same atrocities?

Slavery was/is awful, genocide was/ is awful just because it was socially acceptable at the time doesn't make it any less awful.

Can I look at historical context to understand how people could justify commiting said atrocities? Sure. Dies that make them any less atrocious? Not in my estimation.

 

It's much simpler for me at least, to plainly state that slavery and genocide were/are awful and shouldn't be celebrated and that the building of America no matter the historical context relied and participated in both.

 

3 hours ago, NCTANK said:

i hate that mf’er

Love him 

57 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

This is semantics, I know, but there’s a difference between scheme and game plan IMO. His scheme might have been able to open up players, but the game plan was bad because he repeatedly put a struggling player in a position to carry an offense.

I don’t disagree with you. I should’ve been clearer. I think it definitely a difference between play design/scheme and game plan. I think the plays were fine if our QB was better at making the throws. His gameplan was bad cause his QB couldn’t throw the ball into the ocean, kept throwing and not running the ball to help his QB. I still think the plays were good plays by design because if we had herbert throw those passes we would have been thrilled. 

5 hours ago, bpac55 said:

Here's the muppet review of Mailata against the Panthers.  It's really a hard game to judge how well we did if you ask me.  I mentioned he got abused a bit after the game and while he did on a few plays, he played OK.  

You have to wonder though.   It was his first game ever as a RT playing on a sprained right MCL (his plant leg) wearing a brace which he never wore before and he admitted made him feel stiff.  It's apparent in the tape that he wasn't confident in the leg and the brace.  He looked stiff, high and he often played with his feet too close together (another sign he didn't want to widen his base and put pressure on the knee).  

He wasn't limited at all in practice this week. It will be interesting to see if he goes with the brace tomorrow night or not.  I'm thinking it will be smart to wear the brace one more game and make it to the long break.

 

Yup, I mentioned a couple days ago that he didn't look right, he didn't look like he trusted his plant leg.

As for the brace maybe he needs a smaller one, Tra Thomas is always getting all uppity about OL not wearing protective knee braces, in college seems OL wear them more and they don't seem restrictive.

Either way Mailata didn't look like his leg was a full go.

Imagine 4 day turn around isn't going to help much healing wise and expect he'll look gimpy against BUCS as well. Which is too bad as I thought he was playing really well at LT before the injury ☹️

 

52 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Inching our way closer to bezos being the owner 

8 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Yes ,and doesn't excuse justify or minimize slavery and genocide.

If we continue to excuse and minimize past atrocities what's to stop us from justifying committing same atrocities?

Slavery was/is awful, genocide was/ is awful just because it was socially acceptable at the time doesn't make it any less awful.

Can I look at historical context to understand how people could justify commiting said atrocities? Sure. Dies that make them any less atrocious? Not in my estimation.

 

It's much simpler for me at least, to plainly state that slavery and genocide were/are awful and shouldn't be celebrated and that the building of America no matter the historical context relied and participated in both.

I'm happy that you're happy being on the right side of history, i.e. it's always easy to look back from the present and judge the past.

The past however, doesn't really care about your judgements. You can hope to understand it, or you can merely dismiss it.

Good history excludes moralizing, it focus on facts and evidence - it's not a Tarantino or Mel Gibson movie where you rewrite history to fit your preferences.

Objectivity is an impossible goal, but striving for objectivity keeps the historian honest.

For example, America wasn't built on slavery, the South was, but probably to its detriment. Try a simple counterfactual, no slaves. America is still settled, cotton is still grown, the North still industrializes, NE merchants still find plenty of merchandise to ship. Without slaves, the South is a more attractive destination for immigrants, who become small farmers because plantations aren't viable - so land owners become land speculators, just like the Midwest. Cotton is grown for the same reason it continued to be grown after the abolition of slavery, it's the most lucrative crop you can grow in most Southern soils. The South still lags the North b/c the climate is relatively inhospitable, and the land isn't as fertile as the Midwest. No Civil War, and also no black people, no blues, jazz, or racial conflict, etc. Things are different, but overall probably better as the South is integrated into the national economy and culture.

1 minute ago, austinfan said:

I'm happy that you're happy being on the right side of history, i.e. it's always easy to look back from the present and judge the past.

The past however, doesn't really care about your judgements. You can hope to understand it, or you can merely dismiss it.

Good history excludes moralizing, it focus on facts and evidence - it's not a Tarantino or Mel Gibson movie where you rewrite history to fit your preferences.

Objectivity is an impossible goal, but striving for objectivity keeps the historian honest.

For example, America wasn't built on slavery, the South was, but probably to its detriment. Try a simple counterfactual, no slaves. America is still settled, cotton is still grown, the North still industrializes, NE merchants still find plenty of merchandise to ship. Without slaves, the South is a more attractive destination for immigrants, who become small farmers because plantations aren't viable - so land owners become land speculators, just like the Midwest. Cotton is grown for the same reason it continued to be grown after the abolition of slavery, it's the most lucrative crop you can grow in most Southern soils. The South still lags the North b/c the climate is relatively inhospitable, and the land isn't as fertile as the Midwest. No Civil War, and also no black people, no blues, jazz, or racial conflict, etc. Things are different, but overall probably better as the South is integrated into the national economy and culture.

Ok

 and slavery and genocide still awful.

Like I said why try and minimize or justify it?

How difficult is it to simply just say slavery was/is awful as was /is genocide and America participated and benefitted from both?

 

Not to interrupt a rousing debate on genocide, but Hurts is on pace to have a more prolific season than Wentz:

Wentz's projections: 4,495 yards

Hurts' projections: 4,641 yards

1 minute ago, D-Shiznit said:

Not to interrupt a rousing debate on genocide, but Hurts is on pace to have a more prolific season than Wentz:

Wentz projections: 4,495 yards

Hurts projections: 4,641 yards

Hurts is better obviously. 

5 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

Not to interrupt a rousing debate on genocide, but Hurts is on pace to have a more prolific season than Wentz:

Wentz's projections: 4,495 yards

Hurts' projections: 4,641 yards

They both suck.

6 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

Not to interrupt a rousing debate on genocide, but Hurts is on pace to have a more prolific season than Wentz:

Wentz's projections: 4,495 yards

Hurts' projections: 4,641 yards

We’re counting on you to provide updates on this each Sunday night.

1 minute ago, Alphagrand said:

We’re counting on you to provide updates on this each Sunday night.

@LeanMeanGM

Bucs 40

Eagles 17

 

100 yards and TD for Antonio Brown

1 hour ago, austinfan said:

I'm happy that you're happy being on the right side of history, i.e. it's always easy to look back from the present and judge the past.

The past however, doesn't really care about your judgements. You can hope to understand it, or you can merely dismiss it.

Good history excludes moralizing, it focus on facts and evidence - it's not a Tarantino or Mel Gibson movie where you rewrite history to fit your preferences.

Objectivity is an impossible goal, but striving for objectivity keeps the historian honest.

For example, America wasn't built on slavery, the South was, but probably to its detriment. Try a simple counterfactual, no slaves. America is still settled, cotton is still grown, the North still industrializes, NE merchants still find plenty of merchandise to ship. Without slaves, the South is a more attractive destination for immigrants, who become small farmers because plantations aren't viable - so land owners become land speculators, just like the Midwest. Cotton is grown for the same reason it continued to be grown after the abolition of slavery, it's the most lucrative crop you can grow in most Southern soils. The South still lags the North b/c the climate is relatively inhospitable, and the land isn't as fertile as the Midwest. No Civil War, and also no black people, no blues, jazz, or racial conflict, etc. Things are different, but overall probably better as the South is integrated into the national economy and culture.

You are both right to a degree. But the reality is that history is always filtered by the writer or observer. 

Not sure if this was previously posted.  Javon...

Denny Crane went to space today. 

1 hour ago, D-Shiznit said:

Not to interrupt a rousing debate on genocide, but Hurts is on pace to have a more prolific season than Wentz:

Wentz's projections: 4,495 yards

Hurts' projections: 4,641 yards

Yeah but Wentz has had injuries on the O-line and his WRs....wait, where have I heard that before?

1 hour ago, BigEFly said:

You are both right to a degree. But the reality is that history is always filtered by the writer or observer. 

It's the difference between a lawyer and a judge.

A lawyer makes the best argument for his client (ideological stance), cherry picking facts to support his case. He doesn't care about objectivity, he's trying to win the argument.

A judge should impartially weigh all the evidence and come to a conclusion. Now judges have innate prejudices, since they're human, but they should at least try to account for them and do their best to let the facts speak for themselves.

An historian who starts with a conclusion and marshals the facts to support it is a bad historian, but she might be a good lawyer.

This week is most likely the last time we have to face Tom Brady

I saw a rumor about Lane Johnson having a pain pill addiction which is why he’s out. Is that actually floating around? People are talking about it on a Texas Eagles fan group on FB but I haven’t seen anything on here or elsewhere.

14 minutes ago, eaglesflyers#1 said:

I saw a rumor about Lane Johnson having a pain pill addiction which is why he’s out. Is that actually floating around? People are talking about it on a Texas Eagles fan group on FB but I haven’t seen anything on here or elsewhere.

I think at this point, unfortunately, people are drawing their own conclusions. Some of those conclusions may appear believable or someone may say they know someone who knows the Johnson family etc and then it grows. Perhaps it is a pain pill addiction, perhaps it isn't. Right now it is all speculation and is unfair really on the player. 

58 minutes ago, eaglesflyers#1 said:

I saw a rumor about Lane Johnson having a pain pill addiction which is why he’s out. Is that actually floating around? People are talking about it on a Texas Eagles fan group on FB but I haven’t seen anything on here or elsewhere.

I could believe it, he's had so many injuries the last few years they probably just kept him on them and then he developed an addiction.

Could also just be a mental health issue, either way hopefully he comes out on the other side ok whether he continues in football or not.

It was obvious that there would be rumours about lane Johnson due to the suddenness of him being pulled from the game which given how we’ve all had experiences like it steers those rumours in a certain direction.