Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Midlands Yellow

Jake Daniels Blackpool

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

About 5 years ago a Rugby League player announced he was gay. The BBC suddenly became very interested in Rugby League and despatched a team up north for the game he was playing in that night. They stopped a likely looking character outside the ground and asked him if he'd heard the news. The fan hadn't so they told him the news that one of his team was gay. "Thank God for that, I thought you were going to say he was injured". 

That sums up the general degree of interest in other people's sexuality. The BBC in particular can't seem to grasp that hardly anyone is bothered. It's only news because the media seems to be desperate to make it so. 

I think what will be more important is how fans of other clubs act. Hopefully any homophobic abuse is swift and publicly dealt with by football authorities and the police. That’s the only way this becomes the normality it should be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/05/2022 at 23:42, Tetteys Jig said:

Lol give over. What is the alternative? If he’d just stayed quiet but lived as he wanted, the second he got caught in public with a fella the tabloids would have been all over it. Sad but true. If you actually read what he said today maybe you might understand why he felt the need to go public.

Its not going to get him a big move anyway. Imagine he turned up at say West Ham and wasn’t up to scratch… he’d get all sorts of unwanted attention such is the fickle nature of football fans. He will get the opportunities he deserves through what he shows on the pitch. Wouldn’t really be much of a virtue signal if someone signed him and then stuck him in the reserves for his contract.

Yup... we only need to cast our minds back to a game earlier in the season where chants were aimed at Gilmour... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Nope, totally different. Guttmacher Institute research in question simply focuses on the proportion of kids that aren't planned.

As for condom use, that is covered by separate research, but the proportion of men who don't use condoms at all, especially in the USA, is bewildering. Even in the UK and Western Europe, men are still pretty damn gauche. Worse still, the proportion of men using them every time seems to be falling.

That's the elephant in the room when it comes to abortion-related matters. All the abortion restrictions end up borne by women - but much of it is simply caused by men who just won't wrap it up.

Only part of the issue. Not an elephant in the room as such. It's an indicator. Countries that have lower rates of teenage pregnancies etc tend to have a much better approach to relationship education - they actually have one for starters.

I would suggest that condom use is part of that. Education around relationships is far more powerful and includes topics such as respect, consent, making choices etc. I can only really reflect on England but our approach to subjects like this are still relatively troubled with parents generally being against anything other than very rudimentary stuff. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chicken said:

Only part of the issue. Not an elephant in the room as such. It's an indicator. Countries that have lower rates of teenage pregnancies etc tend to have a much better approach to relationship education - they actually have one for starters.

I would suggest that condom use is part of that. Education around relationships is far more powerful and includes topics such as respect, consent, making choices etc. I can only really reflect on England but our approach to subjects like this are still relatively troubled with parents generally being against anything other than very rudimentary stuff. 

Fair comment, our approach to sex education is still largely stuck in the past and swept under the carpet (presumably shag pile 😉 ), and it's well documented in countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland that more comprehensive sex education tends to lead to fewer teenage pregnancies and - usually - fewer abortions too.

Then you get the abstinence nutters. Doesn't work. The more you make sex a forbidden fruit, the more you make inquisitive minds want to try it and to heck with the consequences. Including unwanted kids, teenage pregnancies, and indeed abortions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

But if a woman's body is her own, then surely if she wants an abortion at 28 weeks then she can have one, right?

More to the point, surely, is the fact that abortion doesn't kill her body. It destroy's the entirely different body of the child growing inside her, with its own unique DNA, fingerprints, etc... So her choice is about another person's body. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a parasite in her body, so her choice is very much about her body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

It's a parasite in her body, so her choice is very much about her body.

And does that apply for the full 40 weeks of the average pregnancy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

And does that apply for the full 40 weeks of the average pregnancy?

I'm happy with that, even if law allows only for 24. I don't see someone else's uterus as something requiring my output. 

Now if men actually started wearing condoms all the time, we'd solve most of these. And that's where our focus should lie.

Edited by TheGunnShow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

I'm happy with that, even if law allows only for 24. I don't see someone else's uterus as something requiring my output. 

Now if men actually started wearing condoms all the time, we'd solve most of these. And that's where our focus should lie.

And what about the hours and days immediately following birth?  After all, if you advocate abortion right up to the end of the pregnancy then why not a bit of gentle infanticide straight after the baby’s birth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Naturalcynic said:

And what about the hours and days immediately following birth?  After all, if you advocate abortion right up to the end of the pregnancy then why not a bit of gentle infanticide straight after the baby’s birth?

I explicitly said "someone else's uterus". Looks like a classic slippery slope fallacy. 

My stance is simple - what's in a woman's body is hers, what's not isn't.
 

ProBirth.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

I explicitly said "someone else's uterus". Looks like a classic slippery slope fallacy. 

My stance is simple - what's in a woman's body is hers, what's not isn't.
 

ProBirth.jpg

So you’d be happy to advocate the abortion of foetuses way past the current 24 week limit, knowing full well that in the later stages of pregnancy they would be perfectly viable and would be likely not only to survive but to thrive?  Do you really think that the abortion argument is as simple as that?  I really do think that perhaps you should consider a bit more deeply the moral, ethical, emotional and humanitarian implications of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

So you’d be happy to advocate the abortion of foetuses way past the current 24 week limit, knowing full well that in the later stages of pregnancy they would be perfectly viable and would be likely not only to survive but to thrive?  Do you really think that the abortion argument is as simple as that?  I really do think that perhaps you should consider a bit more deeply the moral, ethical, emotional and humanitarian implications of your position.

That's wholly for the woman in question to decide, as far as I'm concerned. You may need to take a leaf out that last sentence of yours for your own purposes.

Now if men were responsible with contraception as opposed to the fact that many don't use it at all (and others can't even use it properly), this discussion would be practically moot. As @chicken said, sex education is often a serious problem as it's not remotely fit for purpose here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bizarre argument people are trying to have here.

TheGunnShow: I believe it is the right of women to have THE say over their body.
Naturalcynic: What about after 24 weeks?
TheGunnShow: Still their body.
Naturalcynic: What about 40 weeks?
TheGunnShow: Still their body.
Naturalcynic: What about after the baby is born...

I mean... No. No I won't. Not touching this with a barge pole. All I will say is, TheGunnShow hasn't said any of the things you wanted him to say even though you are trying to make out he has Naturalcynic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chicken said:

What a bizarre argument people are trying to have here.

TheGunnShow: I believe it is the right of women to have THE say over their body.
Naturalcynic: What about after 24 weeks?
TheGunnShow: Still their body.
Naturalcynic: What about 40 weeks?
TheGunnShow: Still their body.
Naturalcynic: What about after the baby is born...

I mean... No. No I won't. Not touching this with a barge pole. All I will say is, TheGunnShow hasn't said any of the things you wanted him to say even though you are trying to make out he has Naturalcynic.

What was it that you think I wanted him/her to say?  He/she seems to have advocated abortion right up to the full 40 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

What was it that you think I wanted him/her to say?  He/she seems to have advocated abortion right up to the full 40 weeks.

No. You have argued that theGunnShow is arguing that, they have simply said it should be up to the people who's body it is. What you have failed to see is that is their consistent argument, not that they support one thing or the other, but at the end of the day, the decision has to be with the women who's body it is, because they have to own that decision and the consequences, both psychologically and physically.

Put another way, you cannot make the argument that it is their body and their choice and then say, "well, until that point, then I think they should do 'x/y/z'" - that would be hypocrisy and completely undo any argument. At that point you would be arguing it is the choice of the pregnant woman and then it isn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chicken said:

No. You have argued that theGunnShow is arguing that, they have simply said it should be up to the people who's body it is. What you have failed to see is that is their consistent argument, not that they support one thing or the other, but at the end of the day, the decision has to be with the women who's body it is, because they have to own that decision and the consequences, both psychologically and physically.

Put another way, you cannot make the argument that it is their body and their choice and then say, "well, until that point, then I think they should do 'x/y/z'" - that would be hypocrisy and completely undo any argument. At that point you would be arguing it is the choice of the pregnant woman and then it isn't.

Currently the legal limit is 24 weeks.  Up until then it is effectively the woman’s choice.  After that, it isn’t.  If theGunnShow is saying that for the whole of the pregnancy it is up to the woman as it’s her body, then that sounds to me like advocating abortion for the full 40 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Currently the legal limit is 24 weeks.  Up until then it is effectively the woman’s choice.  After that, it isn’t.  If theGunnShow is saying that for the whole of the pregnancy it is up to the woman as it’s her body, then that sounds to me like advocating abortion for the full 40 weeks.

Yeah, we got that loud and clear.

It's not what theGunnShow has said though is it. They actually said it was none of their business I believe. In that sense, they have said their view isn't relevant as the most relevant thing is that of the pregnant woman. Shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand really. It's a bit like abstaining from a vote. You may feel you have a view, but your overriding feeling is that it isn't a decision you should make.

And for what it's worth, post 24 weeks isn't clear cut either. If there are complications, sometimes decisions have to be made about whether prioritising the life of the unborn or the life of the mother carrying them. Interestingly that isn't called an abortion - but medically it is a situation faced. It is a possibility faced right up until birth. I take it that you are not against the legal grounds for that? Though with modern technology they are getting better and better at delivering children weeks before their due date, albeit very premature, sometimes very very unwell, and sometimes with little to no chance given of long term survival.

Edited by chicken
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. 24 weeks is a compromise position that I can happily accept, in effect. If someone were to propose a law shortening this period, I would register disdain as it means women have less time to decide. If someone were to propose a law lengthening this period, I would remain quiet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly. 24 weeks is a compromise position that I can happily accept, in effect. If someone were to propose a law shortening this period, I would register disdain as it means women have less time to decide. If someone were to propose a law lengthening this period, I would remain quiet.

TheGunnShow:  “It's a parasite in her body, so her choice is very much about her body.”

Me:  “And does that apply for the full 40 weeks of the average pregnancy?”

TheGunnShow:  “I'm happy with that, even if law allows only for 24.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

TheGunnShow:  “It's a parasite in her body, so her choice is very much about her body.”

Me:  “And does that apply for the full 40 weeks of the average pregnancy?”

TheGunnShow:  “I'm happy with that, even if law allows only for 24.”

 

 

11 minutes ago, chicken said:

It's not what theGunnShow has said though is it. They actually said it was none of their business I believe. In that sense, they have said their view isn't relevant as the most relevant thing is that of the pregnant woman.

One of you understood, the other appears to be trying not to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Bert said:

Football forum folks !

Thank you , Mr Bert . I was wondering about this as well.🤔 

Regards

Tom

 

download.jpeg

Edited by Mengo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

It's a parasite in her body, so her choice is very much about her body.

A parasite? Are you honestly happy to use that term for unborn babies? I would argue it is deeply offensive. Would you go up to a pregnant colleague and ask after the parasite? 
 

dehumanisng the baby might help your argument but isn’t actually accurate. A parasite is an invasive species that invades a DIFFERENT species to feed off it. That doesn’t apply to a mother and her child 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, cornish sam said:

To bring it vaguely back in topic:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61492696

So the battle has been won then? 2 premier League players  and the top trending hashtag globally on twitter supporting him and his stance...

It depends. If the protest is against him being gay in and of itself then it’s appalling and I concede the point. But if the protest is subtly different. As I believe it is. Which is to say it is against lgbt ideology, then that seems ok to me.
 

In a free society a Muslim who says “I have no problem with X being a homosexual, and am happy for him to conduct his private life as he sees fit, but I don’t personally want to advocate his lifestyle and cause” then that is reasonable and not problematic. After all many gay people in return wouldn’t want to celebrate and advocate a Muslim lifestyle and ideology. 
 

a free liberal society is one in which we live alongside people with different beliefs with mutual respect. It’s why I personally don’t like the massive rainbow jackboot that forces everyone to celebrate a specific viewpoint. Christians and Muslims and others will struggle to do that without necessarily having a problem with a live and let live approach. But this nuance is always missing in the media where the narrative is only ever presented as victim and aggressor. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

A parasite? Are you honestly happy to use that term for unborn babies? I would argue it is deeply offensive. Would you go up to a pregnant colleague and ask after the parasite? 
 

dehumanisng the baby might help your argument but isn’t actually accurate. A parasite is an invasive species that invades a DIFFERENT species to feed off it. That doesn’t apply to a mother and her child 

It doesn't necessarily have to be a different species at all, so that falls down. The placenta actually circumvents the woman's immune system to survive in there using approaches that are fundamentally the same in parasitic worms. And the negative impacts of pregnancy on women's bodies are very well documented.

Most importantly, I'm not for using/modifying law to tell unwilling women what to do with what goes on inside their bodies.

Calling an embryo or foetus a baby might help your argument but is definitely inaccurate (embryo then foetus when not born, baby when born). The whole term "unborn baby" is an oxymoron, really.

The placenta really does act like a parasite, Reading research suggests

The foetus as a parasite (cambridge.org) 

Trophoblast transferrin and transferrin receptors in the host--parasite relationship of human pregnancy - PubMed (nih.gov)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did that comment say "we only become human at 9 months"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Football Player comes out publically as gay - PinkUn enters Abortion debate.

naturally Memes & GIFs - Imgflip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

It depends. If the protest is against him being gay in and of itself then it’s appalling and I concede the point. But if the protest is subtly different. As I believe it is. Which is to say it is against lgbt ideology, then that seems ok to me.
 

In a free society a Muslim who says “I have no problem with X being a homosexual, and am happy for him to conduct his private life as he sees fit, but I don’t personally want to advocate his lifestyle and cause” then that is reasonable and not problematic. After all many gay people in return wouldn’t want to celebrate and advocate a Muslim lifestyle and ideology. 
 

a free liberal society is one in which we live alongside people with different beliefs with mutual respect. It’s why I personally don’t like the massive rainbow jackboot that forces everyone to celebrate a specific viewpoint. Christians and Muslims and others will struggle to do that without necessarily having a problem with a live and let live approach. But this nuance is always missing in the media where the narrative is only ever presented as victim and aggressor. 

Please explain what it is you object to with "lgbt ideology"? What is it you see as LGBTQ+ ideology? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...