This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
-
daveisaclaret
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Post
by daveisaclaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 11:55 am
CoolClaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:16 am
I’ll no doubt get flamed for this but I think to actively participate in a religion(any religion) that inherently excludes or discriminates against certain groups/individuals based on their identity or non-belief is problematic and warrants scrutiny.
If someone isn't prejudiced against the LGBTQ+ or Atheist community, for instance, I find it challenging to reconcile how they can align with a belief system that, in doctrine, “condemns homosexuality/ non-believers to eternal punishment."
Maybe I’m overthinking it, but that’s essentially what people are endorsing - I don’t see why we should have to be tolerant to intolerance.
I just don't think that's fair. I agree with any and all criticism of Islam but you have to consider cultural implications and the fact most Muslims are raised Muslim before making sweeping judgements about all of them. Unless a Muslim is openly or clearly homophobic it isn't fair to judge him as such because of his religion no matter how nasty some of the religion is or how unpleasant other fellow Muslims may be.
There are plenty of Muslims who reject homophobia. You might think that doesn't make sense (fairly) but their faith is their own business.
-
CoolClaret
- Posts: 7474
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2262 times
- Has Liked: 2174 times
Post
by CoolClaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:11 pm
daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 11:55 am
I just don't think that's fair. I agree with any and all criticism of Islam but you have to consider cultural implications and the fact most Muslims are raised Muslim before making sweeping judgements about all of them. Unless a Muslim is openly or clearly homophobic it isn't fair to judge him as such because of his religion no matter how nasty some of the religion is or how unpleasant other fellow Muslims may be.
There are plenty of Muslims who reject homophobia. You might think that doesn't make sense (fairly) but their faith is their own business.
Well that’s where we differ then - btw I didn’t specifically mention Muslims/Islam it applies to any and all… Christianity in America has far too much influence in politics, just recently impacting millions of women’s liberty based on a planned, strategic ploy to fill their Supreme Court with justices that would overturn Roe vs Wade…
If people still identify and are practicing members of any religion/belief that has discriminatory doctrine then that to me deserves criticism.
If they’re non practicing then I don’t really know why they identify as a member of said religion.
For sure peoples faith is their own business but when it’s intertwined in public/work then it ceases being a personal thing.
We like to tip toe around this sort of stuff but we’re doing it from the luxury of a pretty free country.
When you let bad ideas run unchecked then it never ends well.
-
Jellybean
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:18 pm
- Been Liked: 164 times
- Has Liked: 826 times
Post
by Jellybean » Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:14 pm
daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 11:55 am
I just don't think that's fair. I agree with any and all criticism of Islam but you have to consider cultural implications and the fact most Muslims are raised Muslim before making sweeping judgements about all of them. Unless a Muslim is openly or clearly homophobic it isn't fair to judge him as such because of his religion no matter how nasty some of the religion is or how unpleasant other fellow Muslims may be.
There are plenty of Muslims who reject homophobia. You might think that doesn't make sense (fairly) but their faith is their own business.
Their faith should not be their own business when it comes to misogyny and the oppression of women, why are so many of you prepared to gloss over this in the name of equality for Muslims.
These 3 users liked this post: Benson Anonymous Dazzler
-
daveisaclaret
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Post
by daveisaclaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:21 pm
If they are misogynists or homophobes, they should be treated exactly as they would if they weren't religious.
Making the assumption that they are either of those things because they identify as Muslim is just an assumption.
-
CoolClaret
- Posts: 7474
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2262 times
- Has Liked: 2174 times
Post
by CoolClaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:23 pm
Jellybean wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:14 pm
Their faith should not be their own business when it comes to misogyny and the oppression of women, why are so many of you prepared to gloss over this in the name of equality for Muslims.
The exact same thing has happened in the US with the Conservatives always claiming to be oppressed by ‘the left’ then seemingly overnight take away the rights of millions of women (and ultimately men, they’re coming for all contraception next).
We didn’t get to where we are in humanity by letting terrible oppressive ideas go unchecked so we don’t upset a few people.
Bad ideas and ideologies need challenging 100% of the time all the time.
Hiding behind religion as an excuse to partake in discriminatory practices is such bullshit.
-
CoolClaret
- Posts: 7474
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2262 times
- Has Liked: 2174 times
Post
by CoolClaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:30 pm
daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:21 pm
If they are misogynists or homophobes, they should be treated exactly as they would if they weren't religious.
Making the assumption that they are either of those things because they identify as Muslim is just an assumption.
Not making that assumption though mate. I made the point of questioning why they still would when the faith/practice is inherently exclusionary/oppressive.
-
daveisaclaret
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Post
by daveisaclaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:37 pm
CoolClaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:30 pm
Not making that assumption though mate. I made the point of questioning why they still would when the faith/practice is inherently exclusionary/oppressive.
You accused them of hypocrisy because a different Muslim is a homophobe.
That question is reasonable, but the answer is invariably going to be complicated, different for most people and something we're never going to find out.
-
Benson
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2022 8:17 pm
- Been Liked: 55 times
- Has Liked: 86 times
Post
by Benson » Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:40 pm
daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:21 pm
If they are misogynists or homophobes, they should be treated exactly as they would if they weren't religious.
Making the assumption that they are either of those things because they identify as Muslim is just an assumption.
An educated assumption.
-
CoolClaret
- Posts: 7474
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2262 times
- Has Liked: 2174 times
Post
by CoolClaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:44 pm
daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:37 pm
You accused them of hypocrisy because a different Muslim is a homophobe.
That question is reasonable, but the answer is invariably going to be complicated, different for most people and something we're never going to find out.
No, that’s not why I accused ‘them’ of hypocrisy.
I stated that it’s hypocritical to have one campaign that promotes the inclusivity of the lgbtq community one minute then the next promoting a campaign about an ideology that is actively discrimatory to the lgbtq community.
I just pointed out the Idrissa Gueye issue to illustrate what a charade it has all become in football.
Just let football be football.
-
daveisaclaret
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Post
by daveisaclaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:53 pm
CoolClaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:44 pm
No, that’s not why I accused ‘them’ of hypocrisy.
I stated that it’s hypocritical to have one campaign that promotes the inclusivity of the lgbtq community one minute then the next promoting a campaign about an ideology that is actively discrimatory to the lgbtq community.
I just pointed out the Idrissa Gueye issue to illustrate what a charade it has all become in football.
Just let football be football.
The campaign is not promoting an ideology, it's supporting a group which faces discrimination. It's not asking people to recite hadith or practice taqwa, it's just an affirmation that Muslims should be welcome at the football club.
Just let football be football is an absolutely facile statement. Are you also opposed to the kick it out campaign?
-
CoolClaret
- Posts: 7474
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2262 times
- Has Liked: 2174 times
Post
by CoolClaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:06 pm
daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:53 pm
The campaign is not promoting an ideology, it's supporting a group which faces discrimination. It's not asking people to recite hadith or practice taqwa, it's just an affirmation that Muslims should be welcome at the football club.
Just let football be football is an absolutely facile statement. Are you also opposed to the kick it out campaign?
Why are you trying to point score on semantics and play gotcha? It’s really boring.
Again i’m in disagreement, you can dress it up however you want, but ultimately it’s still platforming an oppressive ideology - the details of the charter as stated on the first page “ Muslim athletes will be given space to express their views on their faith without judgement” - why? Why would any rational person think that is a positive?
I don’t see kick it out as political in all honesty. I’m just getting really bored (as I guess many are) with the direction that football is going in - similar to how NNN summarised on the previous page.
This user liked this post: Dazzler
-
Benson
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2022 8:17 pm
- Been Liked: 55 times
- Has Liked: 86 times
Post
by Benson » Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:11 pm
Hinduism
Buddhism
Judaism
Sikhism
Shinto
Zoroastrianism
Taoism
Jainism
Baháʼí Faith
Confucianism
Methodism
Lutheranism
Pentecostalism
Protestantism
Anglicanism
Baptist religion
Catholicism
Presbyterianism
Chinese folk religion
Seventh-Day Adventist Church
Rastafarian
athlete charter all to follow in due course.
This user liked this post: LordBob
-
daveisaclaret
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Post
by daveisaclaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:15 pm
CoolClaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:06 pm
Why are you trying to point score on semantics and play gotcha? It’s really boring.
Again i’m in disagreement, you can dress it up however you want, but ultimately it’s still platforming an oppressive ideology - the details of the charter as stated on the first page “ Muslim athletes will be given space to express their views on their faith without judgement” - why? Why would any rational person think that is a positive?
I don’t see kick it out as political in all honesty. I’m just getting really bored (as I guess many are) with the direction that football is going in - similar to how NNN summarised on the previous page.
I'm not trying to play gotcha, I'm just pointing out you're saying a lot of things that aren't fair or true. You are for some reason assuming that offering our Muslim players to express their views is going to have awful consequences and that if they do say something unpleasant this charter is going to protect them.
It's crazy to be bored of the direction that football is going in because of something which will have zero effect on your engagement with the sport and you will probably never hear about ever again.
-
CoolClaret
- Posts: 7474
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2262 times
- Has Liked: 2174 times
Post
by CoolClaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:21 pm
daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:15 pm
I'm not trying to play gotcha, I'm just pointing out you're saying a lot of things that aren't fair or true. You are for some reason assuming that offering our Muslim players to express their views is going to have awful consequences and that if they do say something unpleasant this charter is going to protect them.
It's crazy to be bored of the direction that football is going in because of something which will have zero effect on your engagement with the sport and you will probably never hear about ever again.
You absolutely are because you keep misrepresenting my posts despite me correcting numerous times and even specifically mentioning that my overriding point wasn’t solely focused at Islam/Muslims in general and that we should be moving away at creating safe spaces for any oppressive ideology.
For your last point- no, I disagree. I think many people share similar views on the direction of football.
-
daveisaclaret
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Post
by daveisaclaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:27 pm
CoolClaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:21 pm
You absolutely are because you keep misrepresenting my posts despite me correcting numerous times and even specifically mentioning that my overriding point wasn’t solely focused at Islam/Muslims in general and that we should be moving away at creating safe spaces for any oppressive ideology.
For your last point- no, I disagree. I think many people share similar views on the direction of football.
A lot of people who share similar views on the direction of football are bigots. I'm not saying you are, as I read your posts on here and you're clearly not, but that's the long and short of it.
-
Jellybean
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:18 pm
- Been Liked: 164 times
- Has Liked: 826 times
Post
by Jellybean » Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:32 pm
There we go, bigot bingo. Shoot him down and give him one of the most reprehensible labels to stop him posting, all because he thinks differently and is challenging the ridiculously blinkered rhetoric
This user liked this post: Dazzler
-
daveisaclaret
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Post
by daveisaclaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:35 pm
I've literally posted that he's not a bigot?
-
Jellybean
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:18 pm
- Been Liked: 164 times
- Has Liked: 826 times
Post
by Jellybean » Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:48 pm
The use of the word is sufficient to close down someone's argument
-
CoolClaret
- Posts: 7474
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2262 times
- Has Liked: 2174 times
Post
by CoolClaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:58 pm
daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:27 pm
A lot of people who share similar views on the direction of football are bigots. I'm not saying you are, as I read your posts on here and you're clearly not, but that's the long and short of it.
Hmm… bit of a shady post this mate.
Some of your retorts to me itt are clearly attempting to try and put me into a corner (re Islam despite me mentioning any and all oppressive belief systems) and this one you’re loosely trying to associate me/my views with bigots.
That’s very poor of you in all honesty.
-
daveisaclaret
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Post
by daveisaclaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 2:04 pm
CoolClaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:58 pm
Hmm… bit of a shady post this mate.
Some of your retorts to me itt are clearly attempting to try and put me into a corner (re Islam despite me mentioning any and all oppressive belief systems) and this one you’re loosely trying to associate me/my views with bigots.
That’s very poor of you in all honesty.
It's true unfortunately - some of them have posted in this thread. I agree with you generally about belief systems but ultimately when you're opposing inclusivity you do find yourself in some unpleasant company. I don't think that makes your position any less valid or discredits you personally, but it is a sensible framework to view the position in.
-
Rowls
- Posts: 13271
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5175 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Post
by Rowls » Sat Sep 16, 2023 2:38 pm
daveisaclaret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 2:04 pm
It's true unfortunately - some of them have posted in this thread. I agree with you generally about belief systems but ultimately when you're opposing inclusivity you do find yourself in some unpleasant company. I don't think that makes your position any less valid or discredits you personally, but it is a sensible framework to view the position in.
All this talk of implying people are "bigots" without naming names or explaining *why* you suppose they are "bigots" is weak and cowardly. It needs to stop.
If somebody has posted something bigoted or unfair then say so explicitly and explain your thinking.
The people who aren't supportive of this charter have explained, with various degrees of articulation, *why* they do not support it.
So far, I don't think anybody has had a good stab at explaining *why* they think this is smart move by the club or why it is even necessary? The door is open for somebody to do so and it would be a welcome contribution.
This user liked this post: Dazzler
-
RMutt
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 pm
- Been Liked: 374 times
- Has Liked: 88 times
Post
by RMutt » Sat Sep 16, 2023 2:49 pm
I wonder if this is all getting a bit over thought. Is the initiative not about accepting that players might need an area to pray and time to do it? Also perhaps taking in to consideration players’ needs around Ramadan with regard to food and drink when they may be fasting and so on?
These 2 users liked this post: Greenmile evensteadiereddie
-
martin_p
- Posts: 10380
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
- Been Liked: 3767 times
- Has Liked: 696 times
Post
by martin_p » Sat Sep 16, 2023 5:43 pm
spt_claret wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 10:25 am
If that's the main thing you disagree on I'd suggest you need to reorder your priorities. Of everything about any religion that is by far the least objectionable IMO.
No, I meant it’s the main tenet of every religion.
-
Middle-agedClaret
- Posts: 1062
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:55 pm
- Been Liked: 332 times
- Has Liked: 1121 times
Post
by Middle-agedClaret » Sat Sep 16, 2023 5:52 pm
Religion, dogs, Matt Le Tissier….is there any subject which won’t lead to bickering and point scoring on UTC?
No need to be so hostile and aggressive.
We can disagree with our the need for rancour.
iMHO, of course.
-
TheFamilyCat
- Posts: 10920
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
- Been Liked: 5564 times
- Has Liked: 208 times
Post
by TheFamilyCat » Sat Sep 16, 2023 6:23 pm
RMutt wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 2:49 pm
I wonder if this is all getting a bit over thought. Is the initiative not about accepting that players might need an area to pray and time to do it? Also perhaps taking in to consideration players’ needs around Ramadan with regard to food and drink when they may be fasting and so on?
Yes, but why isn't there a Christian Athletes Charter so clubs show some leniency when players overdo the chocolate at Easter?
This user liked this post: Les Lawrence
-
Rowls
- Posts: 13271
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5175 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Post
by Rowls » Sat Sep 16, 2023 8:47 pm
TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 6:23 pm
Yes, but why isn't there a Christian Athletes Charter so clubs show some leniency when players overdo the chocolate at Easter?
They've only been allowed a single serving of Christmas plum duff since 1999.
-
ClaretInLeeds
- Posts: 804
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:36 pm
- Been Liked: 299 times
- Has Liked: 176 times
Post
by ClaretInLeeds » Sun Sep 17, 2023 8:17 am
bobinho wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 9:14 am
Well it didn’t take long for someone to post how eager they are for “it” to appear….
How very predictable. It’s always the same people too….
This user liked this post: LordBob
-
bfccrazy
- Posts: 5163
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 2105 times
- Has Liked: 416 times
- Location: Burnley
Post
by bfccrazy » Sun Sep 17, 2023 9:08 am
TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 6:23 pm
Yes, but why isn't there a Christian Athletes Charter so clubs show some leniency when players overdo the chocolate at Easter?
Absolutely nothing stopping anybody starting up a Christian Athletes Charter - go for it.
-
Robbie_painter
- Posts: 396
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2022 3:11 am
- Been Liked: 120 times
- Has Liked: 54 times
Post
by Robbie_painter » Sun Sep 17, 2023 7:08 pm
ClaretInLeeds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 8:17 am
How very predictable. It’s always the same people too….
Yes and it’s you,predictably
-
LordBob
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:19 pm
- Been Liked: 277 times
- Has Liked: 196 times
Post
by LordBob » Sun Sep 17, 2023 7:17 pm
Read anything by Peter Townsend (not the musician) then decide if this is a good thing.
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4265 times
Post
by Greenmile » Sun Sep 17, 2023 8:58 pm
LordBob wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 7:17 pm
Read anything by Peter Townsend (not the musician) then decide if this is a good thing.
Who?
This user liked this post: Middle-agedClaret
-
Corky
- Posts: 1432
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:37 pm
- Been Liked: 535 times
- Has Liked: 414 times
Post
by Corky » Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:27 am
Peter Townsend was a sociologist who co-founded the Child Poverty Action Group in 1965. He also wrote about understanding Islam. Try looking him up.
-
Nori1958
- Posts: 3833
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2022 10:45 am
- Been Liked: 1112 times
- Has Liked: 347 times
Post
by Nori1958 » Mon Sep 18, 2023 8:01 am
Corky wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:27 am
Peter Townsend was a sociologist who co-founded the Child Poverty Action Group in 1965. He also wrote about understanding Islam. Try looking him up.
Wooooosssssshhhhhh
This user liked this post: Greenmile
-
Foshiznik
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 723 times
- Has Liked: 2035 times
- Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100
Post
by Foshiznik » Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:06 am
Horrific the amount of posters on this thread throwing out accusations, misinterpretations and uneducated gammon-esque bigotry.
The charter was produced to support the ever growing amount of footballers in the Premier League. By signing the charter a club agrees to provide a place of worship within the facilities, respect and support players who are fasting, provide halal food when feeding the players and providing non-alcoholic alternatives when providing players with alcohol.
Those questioning why we haven't signed a Christian charter... what extra support do Christians need that aren't already in place? The answer is nothing, hence why the charter isn't required. It isn't astrophysics if you just read up on the topic before making offensively charged comments.
Last edited by
Foshiznik on Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
ClaretAndJew
- Posts: 8023
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Post
by ClaretAndJew » Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:08 am
Sorry, this was a thread about Burnley signing up to use finely woven cotton in their shirts from this season.
-
Sproggy
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:41 pm
- Been Liked: 667 times
- Has Liked: 143 times
Post
by Sproggy » Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:42 am
Foshiznik wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:06 am
Horrific the amount of posters on this thread throwing out accusations, misinterpretations and uneducated gammon-esque bigotry.
The charter was produced to support the ever growing amount of footballers in the Premier League. By signing the charter a club agrees to provide a place of worship within the facilities, respect and support players who are fasting, provide halal food when feeding the players and providing non-alcoholic alternatives when providing players with alcohol.
Those questioning why we haven't signed a Christian charter... what extra support do Christians need that aren't already in place? The answer is nothing, hence why the charter isn't required. It isn't astrophysics if you just read up on the topic before making offensively charged comments.
I'd be a bit surprised if the club wasn't already providing everything required by this charter to their multi-million pound assets. I can't imagine there's a bloke in the kitchens this morning unable to prep lunch becasue he's been blindsided by the fact that some of the players require halal meat.
An easy one for the club. "No" isn't a great look and "Yes" probably means not a huge amount to actually do.
-
Foshiznik
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 723 times
- Has Liked: 2035 times
- Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100
Post
by Foshiznik » Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:50 am
Sproggy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:42 am
I'd be a bit surprised if the club wasn't already providing everything required by this charter to their multi-million pound assets. I can't imagine there's a bloke in the kitchens this morning unable to prep lunch becasue he's been blindsided by the fact that some of the players require halal meat.
An easy one for the club. "No" isn't a great look and "Yes" probably means not a huge amount to actually do.
Exactly. It's all about the optics. Nothing but a easy thing to sign. I don't know why so many are against it given this fact.
-
Rowls
- Posts: 13271
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5175 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Post
by Rowls » Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:06 pm
Foshiznik wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:50 am
Exactly. It's all about the optics. Nothing but a easy thing to sign. I don't know why so many are against it given this fact.
Here I can agree with your reasoning. I'd be confident the word "optics" was used in a meeting to agree signing up.
Agree also that it is easy for them to do so. It doesn't necessarily make it right. In fact, it shows that the club have taken "the easy option".
As for your prior ranting about "gammons", the fact that people like yourself are happy to use racialized language to make a point rather than debating with reason is one reason why this debate still needs to be made.
There should be no place for disparaging racial language or slurs.
Why people excuse the use of "gammon" is beyond me. It's appalling.
-
Foshiznik
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 723 times
- Has Liked: 2035 times
- Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100
Post
by Foshiznik » Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:10 pm
Rowls wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:06 pm
Here I can agree with your reasoning. I'd be confident the word "optics" was used in a meeting to agree signing up.
Agree also that it is easy for them to do so. It doesn't necessarily make it right. In fact, it shows that the club have taken "the easy option".
As for your prior ranting about "gammons", the fact that people like yourself are happy to use racialized language to make a point rather than debating with reason is one reason why this debate still needs to be made.
There should be no place for disparaging racial language or slurs.
Why people excuse the use of "gammon" is beyond me. It's appalling.
If you had actually read my post where i said "gammon" you will have seen that i provided a reasoned explanation behind why this was the right decision. Instead, as per usual you looked for something to try and start a confrontation or attempt some one upmanship. It's clear you haven't read my post or indeed the actual charter being debated so there is never going to be any reasoned debate, no matter how much you are trying to make out some whiter than white moral high ground.
-
Guller Bull
- Posts: 2579
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:01 pm
- Been Liked: 798 times
- Has Liked: 1017 times
Post
by Guller Bull » Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:50 pm
I suppose that if a club run by Mormons can sign up for a Muslim Athlete charter then that can only be a good thing from a cross working perspective.
Personally I couldn't give a crap about any religion but each to their own!
-
boyyanno
- Posts: 1643
- Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 7:25 pm
- Been Liked: 516 times
- Has Liked: 117 times
Post
by boyyanno » Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:57 pm
I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing the morality of airing/supporting/giving an audience too oppressive or discriminatory views regardless of religion.
I don't believe the charter is a symbol of those views so its a non starter for me- but how much easier is it to say that than start throwing out the Bigot nonsense?
This user liked this post: Guller Bull
-
Rowls
- Posts: 13271
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5175 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Post
by Rowls » Mon Sep 18, 2023 1:14 pm
Foshiznik wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:10 pm
If you had actually read my post where i said "gammon" you will have seen that i provided a reasoned explanation behind why this was the right decision. Instead, as per usual you looked for something to try and start a confrontation or attempt some one upmanship. It's clear you haven't read my post or indeed the actual charter being debated so there is never going to be any reasoned debate, no matter how much you are trying to make out some whiter than white moral high ground.
No, I read your post. I'm disputing using racialized language is ever right. No matter the context.
If you disagree with an argument you should be able to dispute it without resorting to racial slurs.
-
Foshiznik
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 723 times
- Has Liked: 2035 times
- Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100
Post
by Foshiznik » Mon Sep 18, 2023 2:57 pm
Rowls wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 1:14 pm
No, I read your post. I'm disputing using racialized language is ever right. No matter the context.
If you disagree with an argument you should be able to dispute it without resorting to racial slurs.
It’s not an argument. It’s mock rage from a particular demographic whose best argument is that there isn’t a Christian charter so there shouldn’t be a Muslim one. I explained exactly why that view is wrong but instead you decided to pick out one word and make out like I had used a word of the same ilk as the n-word. All in the name of creating confrontation.
This user liked this post: Greenmile
-
ClaretInLeeds
- Posts: 804
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:36 pm
- Been Liked: 299 times
- Has Liked: 176 times
Post
by ClaretInLeeds » Mon Sep 18, 2023 3:08 pm
Robbie_painter wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 7:08 pm
Yes and it’s you,predictably
Only one person who's openly racist and advocates a bit of misogyny in this conversation between us both - and it's not me.
-
Corky
- Posts: 1432
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:37 pm
- Been Liked: 535 times
- Has Liked: 414 times
Post
by Corky » Mon Sep 18, 2023 3:37 pm
Nori1958 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 8:01 am
Wooooosssssshhhhhh
I’m afraid infantile nonsense like this doesn’t do anything for me or add anything to the discussion. But perhaps you’re not able to?
-
dsr
- Posts: 15245
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
- Been Liked: 4579 times
- Has Liked: 2270 times
Post
by dsr » Mon Sep 18, 2023 3:39 pm
The specific point is that this charter says that if a Muslim makes any sort of comment about any matter pertaining to his faith, it should be accepted without judgement. It's only one point of 10 in the charter, but it's a highly dubious one. Christians do not have (nor, in most cases, do they expect) that right.
This user liked this post: Dazzler
-
Nori1958
- Posts: 3833
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2022 10:45 am
- Been Liked: 1112 times
- Has Liked: 347 times
Post
by Nori1958 » Mon Sep 18, 2023 3:45 pm
Corky wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 3:37 pm
I’m afraid infantile nonsense like this doesn’t do anything for me or add anything to the discussion. But perhaps you’re not able to?
You obviously didn't see the humour in "who" comment the poster made, it did need a sense of humour to appreciate it.
This user liked this post: Middle-agedClaret
-
Rowls
- Posts: 13271
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5175 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Post
by Rowls » Mon Sep 18, 2023 4:24 pm
Foshiznik wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 2:57 pm
It’s not an argument. It’s mock rage from a particular demographic whose best argument is that there isn’t a Christian charter so there shouldn’t be a Muslim one. I explained exactly why that view is wrong but instead you decided to pick out one word and make out like I had used a word of the same ilk as the n-word. All in the name of creating confrontation.
As I said before - there's a clear difference of opinion between us.
You believe it's ok to use racial slurs if the context justifies it.
I believe it's not acceptable.
-
Foshiznik
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 723 times
- Has Liked: 2035 times
- Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100
Post
by Foshiznik » Mon Sep 18, 2023 4:30 pm
Rowls wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 4:24 pm
As I said before - there's a clear difference of opinion between us.
You believe it's ok to use racial slurs if the context justifies it.
I believe it's not acceptable.
No the difference of opinion is I don't consider "gammon" to be a racial slur and you do, although i am dubious as to your intentions in taking that stance on this particular word given your reputation on this messageboard for being someone who gets a kick out of creating confrontations.
The fact that you haven't even attempted to explain why you disagree with my other points tells me that you may even agree with my opinion, but that wouldn't create the confrontation you want, so you just completely ignored it.
This user liked this post: Greenmile