Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

I saw that and thought he was getting a bit paranoid. Referees will merely be shown good examples of what's wrong, the kit of the teams wearing them is an irrelevance.

Sounds a little naive to me. Especially when you see the penalty given vs not given against Iran as a starting point to the tournament, almost reinforcing the belief he had prior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Referees will merely be shown good examples of what's wrong, the kit of the teams wearing them is an irrelevance.

Would it be irrelevant if police training used "good examples" of only black people committing crimes, then?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Would it be irrelevant if police training used "good examples" of only black people committing crimes, then?

Depends how clear the examples are. That's the key point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his point was it made it look like something England players did regularly, other nations in the competition were shown as offended against.

Share this post


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

Depends how clear the examples are. That's the key point.

Surely the key point in training for a world competition is to show diverse examples from around different leagues? 

Share this post


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

Surely the key point in training for a world competition is to show diverse examples from around different leagues? 

I disagree and would say obvious examples are required so you know how FIFA want the Laws to be applied. I don't remember an international manager making this comment for previous World Cups and I'd be amazed if international matches weren't used as previous learning material.

Wait: Nancy Faeser, the German Interior Minister is wearing the One Love armband and SHE'S SAT NEXT TO GIANNI INFANTINO! 😄 👏

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I disagree and would say obvious examples are required so you know how FIFA want the Laws to be applied

So based on the report of footage used, you would accept that the only obvious examples applicable to the world of footballing are involving England players?

Edited by Google Bot

Share this post


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

That was DFB media director Steffen Simon.

I find it telling that James Cleverly has been blathering the mindless nonsense of saying there should be some compromise. There is nothing to compromise. It's concession.

At least Nancy Faeser has decided to hell with them and wear the armband anyway.

 

8 minutes ago, hogesar said:

It's really difficult to encompass the entire situation, but it's incredibly easy as people sitting here in England to claim this, that and the other.

And we have to remember, there's a huge % of the population who don't really think for themselves. That's not an attack but there's been some intelligent debate on here - there'll be hundreds of thousands of far less educated remarks made in pubs throughout the world throughout the week.

We have been "progressed" into being much more tolerable of other religions and allowing them to promote and enhance their religious beliefs within our own country, and to show respect to it across the world.

As backwards, nonsensical and homophobic it is to us, they're citing their religious beliefs as their backup.

Do we now say we only support the bits of the religions that suit us in the West? Is that the right way to approach it?

I'm purposefully playing devils advocate for the purpose of debate by the way, I just think it's an interesting social issue.

I oppose the ban on the armband for the same reason as I would oppose a ban in the UK on Muslim women wearing the veil. 

We haven't yet reached the stage where we can celebrate the uniqueness of every human person, but toleration is a step in the right direction.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

So based on the knowledge of what was used, you accept that the only obvious examples applicable to the world of footballing are involving England players?

I said what's needed are clear examples. You need to ask Pierluigi Collina (FIFA referees chairman, and quite possibly the best referee in history) that question.

Are you aware of any other cases of a national manager asking such a question re. video footage used to debrief officials? I'm certainly not aware of any.

I just think this is much ado about nothing, and Southgate's feeling the pressure a bit.

Share this post


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

I said what's needed are clear examples. You need to ask Pierluigi Collina (FIFA referees chairman, and quite possibly the best referee in history) that question.

And I'm asking whether you believe the only clear examples to apply in training officials for a world cup are only from England players?  A straight yes or no will do.

Share this post


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

And I'm asking whether you believe the only clear examples to apply in training officials for a world cup are only from England players?  A straight yes or no will do.

Can't answer it then, as my response is that I don't know for sure. In fact, I don't even see how that question is even relevant for starters.

Share this post


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

Can't answer it then, as my response is that I don't know for sure

So you don't know if there would be a clear example, outside of England players, of fouls in the penalty area in world football?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

So you don't know if there would be a clear example, outside of England players, of fouls in the penalty area in world football?

I still don't see the relevance of your question. Pierluigi Collina used one example which happened to be Kalvin Phillips against Albania where Maguire scored as a result and suddenly England fans are meant to believe "waah, they're after us"?

Should he/FIFA use only club matches as examples before international tournaments? Should he use one from all 32 countries involved in the tournament for balance? That would be one long debriefing. Would take ages to prepare as well.

By far the most logical conclusion I can come up with is that it's a mere coincidence.

Share this post


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

I still don't see the relevance of your question.

Wasn't asking for you to validate it's relevance. I was asking you directly if you believe that the only clear examples are involving England.  This was based on how the conversation developed.  

But forget it.  Lost all interest now.

Edited by Google Bot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hogesar said:

It's really difficult to encompass the entire situation, but it's incredibly easy as people sitting here in England to claim this, that and the other.

And we have to remember, there's a huge % of the population who don't really think for themselves. That's not an attack but there's been some intelligent debate on here - there'll be hundreds of thousands of far less educated remarks made in pubs throughout the world throughout the week.

We have been "progressed" into being much more tolerable of other religions and allowing them to promote and enhance their religious beliefs within our own country, and to show respect to it across the world.

As backwards, nonsensical and homophobic it is to us, they're citing their religious beliefs as their backup.

Do we now say we only support the bits of the religions that suit us in the West? Is that the right way to approach it?

I'm purposefully playing devils advocate for the purpose of debate by the way, I just think it's an interesting social issue.

Religion is interpreted numerous ways from the same source. The issue is that when religion is written down it becomes instantly open to corruption or initial interpretation by the reader and the author. If you follow the Old Testament we would be pimping out our daughters to our mates amongst other horrific acts that someone at some time said was the will of god. That’s the trouble with religion in a nutshell, it’s a belief system based on no single shred of evidence so can be used indiscriminately to suit almost any means. If you believe god physically wrote the bible or equivalent deity wrote equivalent sacred text then you believe in discrimination and archaic cruel and disgusting acts in the name of said deity, if you believe the text was written by someone as an interpretation so you choose to ignore the nasty bits, what basis are you choosing the bits to ignore or follow other than just because you want to? The latter effectively undermines any limited credibility religion has in a written form. So we are left with being religious from a viewpoint of a funny feeling in your loins or blind faith or what your parents made you follow. All terrible reasons for people who simply are uncomfortable accepting that they’ll never actually know the origin of us or the afterlife. Science won’t ever fully answer it, religion tries but fails. The majority of us are just happy when we learn a little bit more from an asteroid or something but go about our daily lives just being ok to each other most of the time. 
I’ll never know how we came to be or what happens after. I’m ok with that because I’m not insecure. 

Edited by SwearyCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hogesar said:

It's really difficult to encompass the entire situation, but it's incredibly easy as people sitting here in England to claim this, that and the other.

And we have to remember, there's a huge % of the population who don't really think for themselves. That's not an attack but there's been some intelligent debate on here - there'll be hundreds of thousands of far less educated remarks made in pubs throughout the world throughout the week.

We have been "progressed" into being much more tolerable of other religions and allowing them to promote and enhance their religious beliefs within our own country, and to show respect to it across the world.

As backwards, nonsensical and homophobic it is to us, they're citing their religious beliefs as their backup.

Do we now say we only support the bits of the religions that suit us in the West? Is that the right way to approach it?

I'm purposefully playing devils advocate for the purpose of debate by the way, I just think it's an interesting social issue.

I don't think it's unreasonable for religion and non-religion to meet on occasion and share remotely similar viewpoints as ultimately, religion is essentially a lens through which believers choose to see the world. That's probably where it appears to be "supporting the bits of religions that suit us in the West" - just because believers chose to follow/believe in the existance of a God doesn't mean they're always going to see things in a polar opposite way to myself, a fierce non-believer. Heck, if you look at the Ten Commandments as the most rudimentary of starting points, I suspect most of us would agree with not killing, stealing, or committing adultery.

The problem here is when religion, regardless of stripe, is used to justify laws that are an attack on human rights for specific groups of people or in lesser cases, aimed at granting the religious group in question a privileged position over others. There is no legitimate scientific reason backing up Qatar's fundamentalist stance re. homosexuality, and herein lies the problem. They're asking for respect for a stance with nothing factual to back it up, yet it also disrespects a group of people for being naturally themselves.

As for those saying "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" or "respect their laws", I think that misses the point entirely. If one thing is clear throughout history, great progress was often achieved by those who questioned and even "disrespected" laws that were clearly no longer any use when analysed under the conditions of the time criticism became more prevalent as opposed to when they came into force, or never were much use in the first place. Laws that naturally disrespect the rights of certain groups never deserved respect in the first place.

EDIT: Not to mention, whilst I shall probably always remain critical of religion, I readily accept that cretins will use religion as a poor justification for their deeds - and conversely, some will use religion to justify laudable ones. The base sorts who criticise gay marriage as not Christian are the former, yet David Cameron, in one of his best moves as PM, said his Christian faith was what helped him see gay marriage as right.

Edited by TheGunnShow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SwearyCanary said:

Religion is interpreted numerous ways from the same source. The issue is that when religion is written down it becomes instantly open to corruption or initial interpretation by the reader and the author. If you follow the Old Testament we would be pimping out our daughters to our mates amongst other horrific acts that someone at some time said was the will of god. That’s the trouble with religion in a nutshell, it’s a belief system based on no single shred of evidence so can be used indiscriminately to suit almost any means. If you believe god physically wrote the bible or equivalent deity wrote equivalent sacred text then you believe in discrimination and archaic cruel and disgusting acts in the name of said deity, if you believe the text was written by someone as an interpretation so you choose to ignore the nasty bits, what basis are you choosing the bits to ignore or follow other than just because you want to? The latter effectively undermines any limited credibility religion has in a written form. So we are left with being religious from a viewpoint of a funny feeling in your loins or blind faith or what your parents made you follow. All terrible reasons for people who simply are uncomfortable accepting that they’ll never actually know the origin of us or the afterlife. Science won’t ever fully answer it, religion tries but fails. The majority of us are just happy when we learn a little bit more from an asteroid or something but go about our daily lives just being ok to each other most of the time. 
I’ll never know how we came to be or what happens after. I’m ok with that because I’m not insecure. 

Good job you don’t teach RE 😉, you jump to so many conclusions in your post I think I’ll just let it go 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

Good job you don’t teach RE 😉, you jump to so many conclusions in your post I think I’ll just let it go 

I must confess to being atheist leaning towards unbothered agnostic, but there are so many issues with organised religions that I just don’t see what the religious aspect of their existence actually brings to the table that ‘just being nice’ does, without having to decide whether women really are made from one of man’s ribs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

Good job you don’t teach RE 😉, you jump to so many conclusions in your post I think I’ll just let it go 

But I am intrigued as to which conclusions I jump to that are refutable vs the ones that are not 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

there are so many issues with organised religions that I just don’t see what the religious aspect of their existence actually brings to the table that ‘just being nice’ does

Personally I'd love to have faith and feel somewhat jealous of people who do genuinely have it.

I'm very much happy and at peace with myself, but a reason for existence is very hard to define when you don't have faith.  And when losing someone I love the thought of heaven, and things happening for a reason as part of a plan. And in those moments I'll happily nod on as people tell me their beliefs and see genuine comfort for them.

But inside I just think of it as being the same nothingness that was there before I was born, And that can feel a little cold to me.  I like that I can make sense of that from logical perspective, but not so much emotionally.  

In fact I had a word with the local vicar after a funeral 3 years back, as others, thanked him for the service and said how much I'd love to have faith and how church numbers are so much lower than when I was a kid - was that a concern for him.   I think he found the chat interesting but not the right time or place, so he invited me to go see him the following week.

When speaking in more detail I raised more questions than he had answers for, and it became clear that he didn't really believe half the **** being said and it's more about a duty of care to the community.  aka a job.

Same as teachers in CofE schools, they're all preaching it to the students so I presumed there was some kind of religious standard that you had to meet to get a job there. But we had these adventure school outings with the kids where you make camps and eat marshmallows from the fire, and I got talking to a few of the teachers and they all rolled their eyes and laughed when I asked if they were all super religious -  told me it's just nonsense that they're told to read, like all the text and prayers on school newsletters.  

It's all a big song and dance really. 

But it must be doing something positive, right?  There must be some kind of moral standards and values in there which makes society better than what "Just be nice" could ever reach.   I kind of think that CCTV has made religion more redundant, in that it's more definitive that you're being watched by a camera, than the almighty sitting there taking notes.

I think I'm having some kind of existential crisis now... time to stop.  Oh lord, give me faith! 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, this is just proving to me how irrelevant international football is becoming.

The fraud and corruption of governing bodies is bad eonough but to expect politcal and moral unity between such diverse countries is ridiculous. Never mind what other countries are doing fellas, do what you feel you are morally bound to do and morally brave enough to carry out.

In 1935, England, playing at home at Tottenham, against Germany, were told by the FA, to give the N.A.Z.I salute during the German anthem. Can you believe that? Only one player, Stan Cullis, refused and he was dropped for the next match.

So while we do indeed pontificate about what anyone should do, I don't believe doing it as a group is the right way. Nobody should be pressured but anyone who feels strongly should make their own protest, knowing the rest would support them if their actions brought trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Personally I'd love to have faith and feel somewhat jealous of people who do genuinely have it.

I'm very much happy and at peace with myself, but a reason for existence is very hard to define when you don't have faith.  And when losing someone I love the thought of heaven, and things happening for a reason as part of a plan. And in those moments I'll happily nod on as people tell me their beliefs and see genuine comfort for them.

But inside I just think of it as being the same nothingness that was there before I was born, And that can feel a little cold to me.  I like that I can make sense of that from logical perspective, but not so much emotionally.  

In fact I had a word with the local vicar after a funeral 3 years back, as others, thanked him for the service and said how much I'd love to have faith and how church numbers are so much lower than when I was a kid - was that a concern for him.   I think he found the chat interesting but not the right time or place, so he invited me to go see him the following week.

When speaking in more detail I raised more questions than he had answers for, and it became clear that he didn't really believe half the **** being said and it's more about a duty of care to the community.  aka a job.

Same as teachers in CofE schools, they're all preaching it to the students so I presumed there was some kind of religious standard that you had to meet to get a job there. But we had these adventure school outings with the kids where you make camps and eat marshmallows from the fire, and I got talking to a few of the teachers and they all rolled their eyes and laughed when I asked if they were all super religious -  told me it's just nonsense that they're told to read, like all the text and prayers on school newsletters.  

It's all a big song and dance really. 

But it must be doing something positive, right?  There must be some kind of moral standards and values in there which makes society better than what "Just be nice" could ever reach.   I kind of think that CCTV has made religion more redundant, in that it's more definitive that you're being watched by a camera, than the almighty sitting there taking notes.

I think I'm having some kind of existential crisis now... time to stop.  Oh lord, give me faith! 🙂

As for the bit in bold, I'll say this: there's no evidence for it re. positivity. There have been some attempts in sociological research to raise religion onto a higher footing but the correlation/causation fallacy is always a primary stumbling block. Haven't followed it in too much detail, but also suspect there would be weaknesses with those who initially were one state (initial non-believers but changed, or initially believers but changed) not being adequately covered in the results.

As for your reason for existence question, someone whose name escapes me had a great answer for this - the purpose of life is simply to live. After that, it's tabula rasa.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As for your reason for existence question, someone whose name escapes me had a great answer for this - the purpose of life is simply to live. After that, it's tabula rasa.

Sounds like something Alan Watts would come out with.  I've allowed his words to fill a lot of my headspace as he presents quite complicated matters in a very simplified way.  Not to mention it was great to get ****faced to his voice when I was younger... But those words went in.

This is why I'm a little hesitant to dismiss religion when you consider the Buddhist (Zen?) principles out there which do carry a lot of logic, simplicity and directly oppose this western concept of chasing the carrot.

In fact, learning this probably did save my life a while back and still keeps me on track when going through stressful times.  It's like a rock planted right in the middle of my core and somehow I can maintain calmness when all around lose their heads.

Not to mention, going back to CofE schools which teach principles most speaking don't believe in themselves, and our schooling actively encourages children from skilled families to be washed with this same "must learn IT", "must know Algebra" scoring system.

God knows where I'm going with this, I just have too many intwined thoughts on the matter to even begin to put it down in a readable format! 🙂

anyyyyywaaaayyy ...that ol' Pukki h'int scoring much now is he, buh!

Edited by Google Bot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Sounds like something Alan Watts would come out with.  I've allowed his words to fill a lot of my headspace as he presents quite complicated matters in a very simplified way.  Not to mention it was great to get ****faced to his voice when I was younger... But those words went in.

This is why I'm a little hesitant to dismiss religion when you consider the Buddhist (Zen?) principles out there which do carry a lot of logic, simplicity and directly oppose this western concept of chasing the carrot.

In fact, learning this probably did save my life a while back and still keeps me on track when going through stressful times.  It's like a rock planted right in the middle of my core and somehow I can maintain calmness when all around lose their heads.

Not to mention, going back to CofE schools which teach principles most speaking don't believe in themselves, and our schooling actively encourages children from skilled families to be washed with this same "must learn IT", "must know Algebra" scoring system.

God knows where I'm going with this, I just have too many intwined thoughts on the matter to even begin to put it down in a readable format! 🙂

anyyyyywaaaayyy ...that ol' Pukki h'int scoring much now is he, buh!

It was Alan Watts, now you mention it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23/11/2022 at 20:36, SwearyCanary said:

I must confess to being atheist leaning towards unbothered agnostic, but there are so many issues with organised religions that I just don’t see what the religious aspect of their existence actually brings to the table that ‘just being nice’ does, without having to decide whether women really are made from one of man’s ribs. 

This is where I sit too, I don't believe but I'm also largely not bothered by people who do.

However the issue is quite a few of the more religious talk about wanting 'tolerance' when actually what they ask for is deference, which is exactly the situation in Qatar.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest news: the UK Minister for Sport, Stuart Andrew, has said he will wear the armband at the England-Wales match on Tuesday.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/11/2022 at 16:05, benchwarmer said:

Latest news: the UK Minister for Sport, Stuart Andrew, has said he will wear the armband at the England-Wales match on Tuesday.

 

Two days on, media silence reigns. Did he or didn't he?  And if not, why not?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benchwarmer said:

Two days on, media silence reigns. Did he or didn't he?  And if not, why not?

 

 

Yes he did. On the BBC news website. Apparently he is openly gay, which I means it is more than just virtue signalling.

  • Thanks 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...