Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

There was an FLL team last year called the Knights of the Rectangular Table.

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

[SOAP BOX]

I didn't realize that a team was named "The Spanish Inquisition." That is a terrible name. I hope if anyone from that team is reading this they seriously consider naming their team after something that doesn't involve discrimination, persecution, theft, censorship, and/or execution.

[/SOAP BOX]

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

Maybe they're just Monty Python fans.

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

There are definitely better ways of referencing Monty Python if that's the objective.

My favorite team name is team 2102, paradox. Their mascot is a parrot/ox, and it makes me happy

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

4008- Theodore Roosevelt's Disco Haircut is definitely my favorite.

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

The inquisition killed, on average, roughly half as many people annually as the United States executes. Would you object to a team's naming itself "Team America"?

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

You're taking that COMPLETELY out of context, and in a very irrational way.

People executed in the US got there as a result of the due process of law, laws created by a publicly elected body, and only for very serious and heinous crimes.

The inquisition executed people for their beliefs, on top of enforcing incredibly repressive laws.

I would not object to a team naming itself "Team America" because of the significant moral difference.

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

Nah, but I would object to a team named "Team Death Penalty" or "Team Execution of US Inmates". There's a huge difference between a name directly referring to a moral atrocity and a name referring to an entire nation which also does do some morally questionable acts. Is it really that hard to understand his point?

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

Well, I guess I'll bite. Sorry for being a few days late to the reply.

Your main argument is that the American death penalty is more morally acceptable than the executions committed by the Spanish Inquisition. If I've misinterpreted, please correct me. I'll attempt to disprove this argument.

Firstly, it is near sophistry to claim that your moral lens is any more in focus that the lens used by the Spanish priests. Keep in mind that your view of who should or should be put to death has indubitably been colored by your culture, which, I presume, is that of some region of the United States. Personally, I believe that capital punishment in general is a great moral wrong, that ultimately humanity relies on human compassion to advance, and that putting a criminal to death is the very nadir of what the justice should be: rehabilitation, not punishment. I am certainly not alone in this view; many developed countries in the world not only have abolished the death penalty within their jurisdictions, but have also centered their prison systems on reforming criminals (as opposed to the system of castigation used commonly in America), to great effect.

However, far be it from me to say that my moral standards are better than yours. Who is to say what is right, other than those who follow conscience, and those others who follow precedent? And far be it from you to say that your code of ethics has any advantage over that of the Inquisitors.

And so I arrive at the second part of your argument. You claim, denotatively, that the Inquisition executed people for their beliefs, and that they enforced incredibly repressive laws. Your connotations, therefore, are that the United States punishes people purely for reasons outside of religious belief, that it does not enforce incredibly repressive laws. Again, correct me if I am mistaken. I have two counterarguments to this.

Firstly, let us frame ourselves in the perspective of an Inquisitor. At the time, it was the belief of devout Catholics that only devout Catholics, absolved of sin, could pass into heaven. Everybody else was destined for eternal torment in hell. (Of course I am simplifying quite a bit. I do not believe that expanding on 16th-century Catholic beliefs will change my argument. If you believe otherwise, please refute this claim.) From that view, then, it is easy to see why the Inquisition, whose nominal goal was to ensure that those non-Catholics who had converted to Catholicism stayed faithful to the orthodoxy, employed harsh tactics to do so. After all, if a bit of earthly punishment were the difference between heaven and hell, it would surely be justifiable to strongly enforce religious orthodoxy on Earth in order to save the souls of would-be sinners. To the Inquisition (all of whose members were raised not in the culture of the modern United States, but that of medieval Spain), it would have been a great moral wrongdoing to not punish those who strayed from strict Catholicism. This is further evidenced by the fact that those condemned to burning were allowed to repent their sins before God; if they did so (which, in Catholicism, would let them avoid hell), they were killed mercifully by asphyxiation before their bodies were burned.

Secondly, I'd argue that our modern world is not yet at a place where we don't "execute people for their beliefs", nor "enforce incredibly repressive laws". One only has to look at post-9/11 America to see state-sponsored religious persecution abound. There are many examples (I'd be happy to elaborate if you'd like), but a significant recent instance was the death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen killed in a drone strike in Yemen. His only crime was that his father was part of al-Qaeda.

Your argument is slightly better, though still somewhat misleading. I can see your general point, but I'll take you task on one of your specifics, namely that the "Spanish Inquisition" refers directly "to a moral atrocity". The Spanish Inquisition was more formally known (in English) as the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, a name which pretty accurately describes them: a tribunal that investigates ("inquires") questions of adherence to religious orthodoxy. As to their methods, and how morally questionable they were, I've already addressed that above; you may, of course, find fault with my logic. But until someone does so, I'll simply say, quod erat demonstrandum.


tl;dr: Rock on, 3469.

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

If you believe that any capital punishment is immoral, then why do you approve of the name "The Spanish Inquisition" at all? Especially having acknowledged that the Inquisition did indeed execute people.

I acknowledge that the US Government has not always acted in perfect moral authority. I contend that any person or institution should be judged on the sum of their actions, and the intentions of their actions, as one would be very hard-pressed to find anyone or anything that is completely free of mistakes or lapses in judgement.

I will point out that your argument fails one key litmus test (IMO anyway): beliefs do not materially affect your peers, actions do materially affect your peers. An example full of hyperbole (maybe): there is a very clear line between believing that murder is okay, and actually murdering someone. This is the key difference IMO.

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

Can that be moved to PMs please? I'd hate to see this thread be closed.

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

2 4 6 8 Team Appreciate!

They're probably the only 4 digit team that says every individual interger in their number.

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

I'm a fan of some of our local teams:

FTC 7655 "The Q is Silqent."

FTC 4140 "Fish in the Boat"

FLL has some good ones too. I once saw a team with the name "Maybe NXT Year."

In FRC, I'll join the masses in my appreciation of Team 2468 for their best use of a team number.

Re: Best FIRST Team Name?
 

I'll simply concede the argument.