Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
davieG

Premier League 2021/22 Thread

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

No. Strong disagree.

 

No matter how noble your aims, if you inflict your views on others by disturbing the peace, you damage your cause.

 

This guy was so self-centred, he thought 30,000 people in the ground and hundreds of thousands at home had to stop their evening and look at him.

 

If you reward that, you give the green light for every person, with every view, to disturb everyone else.

 

If he has strong views about something, he should run for office, stand on a box in Hyde Park or pay for advertising.

 

 

No. 
Can you imagine if he does that in another country?

Hardly disturbing the peace. He obstructed a football match, by putting himself in discomfort.

Also not sure how it’s been rewarded. Looked like a pretty brutal end for him. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, westernpark said:

No. 
Can you imagine if he does that in another country?

Hardly disturbing the peace. He obstructed a football match, by putting himself in discomfort.

Also not sure how it’s been rewarded. Looked like a pretty brutal end for him. 

 

You are wrong. Twice or three times.

 

In France or Italy they would have been at him with night sticks before he got near he goal posts.

 

"Brutal".  Really ? lol  Wrong again.  They were gentle in getting him off the posts.  He then "started it" as he was being led off, fairly calmly.

 

The rightness or wrongness of his arguments is not what I'm on about.

 

If anyone who wants to protest about their pet ideas thinks they can disturb a public event with no consequences, we won't have public events.

 

He could have caused a riot by needlessly disturbing the evenings of a large crowd of people.  

 

It's utterly indefensible and he should be punished with the full force of the law.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, westernpark said:

No. 
Can you imagine if he does that in another country?

Hardly disturbing the peace. He obstructed a football match, by putting himself in discomfort.

Also not sure how it’s been rewarded. Looked like a pretty brutal end for him. 

He is fairly skinny. Play on IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to say, I'm all for protests and disruption. Poll tax, bus boycotts, civil rights, women's vote...being polite only gets you so far. 

 

I know this is the EPL thread but would people have been bothered if someone ran on the pitch at St Jame's Park or Stamford Bridge, protesting their owners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

And while we're at it let's take the vote back off women etc etc.

 

 

 

Ah. False equivalence.  Bravo.

 

Who decides what cause is "allowed" to disturb public events? 

 

You? lol  Yeah, great.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

If someone feels really very strongly that the world needs to hear the message of flat earth or the gospel of beelzebub, are they OK to protest like that, too?

 

You can protest in the public square. 

 

You can stand for office. 

 

You can make a banner if you like.

 

You don't have the right to disturb 30,000 others with your pet idea.

 

A protester thinking that the world needs to stop what they are doing and look at them is selfish and letting it go invites a slippery slope.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Disappointed with some of the reactions to the protester tbh. Feels like a lot of people who would be against climate change or Newcastle's owners in other contexts don't want protesters to affect them.

Hope every Newcastle game gets protesters disrupting them tbh,

Well yeah, I thought that would've been obvious with the insulate Britain mob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Ah. False equivalence.  Bravo.

 

Who decides what cause is "allowed" to disturb public events? 

 

You? lol  Yeah, great.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

If someone feels really very strongly that the world needs to hear the message of flat earth or the gospel of beelzebub, are they OK to protest like that, too?

 

You can protest in the public square. 

 

You can stand for office. 

 

You can make a banner if you like.

 

You don't have the right to disturb 30,000 others with your pet idea.

 

A protester thinking that the world needs to stop what they are doing and look at them is selfish and letting it go invites a slippery slope.

 

 

It's not false equivalence, you've literally just said it's equivalence!

You've literally just said women's suffragettes disturbing a public event like women's suffrage disrupting Epsom by jumping in front of the King's horse for example is a slippery slope and the same as flat earthers disturbing a public event.

Of course the reason for the protest should matter!
 

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

You are wrong. Twice or three times.

 

In France or Italy they would have been at him with night sticks before he got near he goal posts.

 

"Brutal".  Really ? lol  Wrong again.  They were gentle in getting him off the posts.  He then "started it" as he was being led off, fairly calmly.

 

The rightness or wrongness of his arguments is not what I'm on about.

 

If anyone who wants to protest about their pet ideas thinks they can disturb a public event with no consequences, we won't have public events.

 

He could have caused a riot by needlessly disturbing the evenings of a large crowd of people.  

 

It's utterly indefensible and he should be punished with the full force of the law.

 

This comparison is not false equivalence because you are effectively saying that anyone infringing on the pitch regardless of the cause, is subject to the things you have set out.

What would your reaction have been if the individual was wearing a Ukraine shirt? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Worked out well for Everton that fan hooking himself to the goal post then !

Guess it would have been hilarious for Watford fans to potentially be a league above Richarlson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

It's not false equivalence, you've literally just said it's equivalence!

You've literally just said women's suffragettes disturbing a public event like women's suffrage disrupting Epsom by jumping in front of the King's horse for example is a slippery slope and the same as flat earthers disturbing a public event.

Of course the reason for the protest should matter!
 

 

But who is the arbiter of which ideas are to be welcomed as the subject of protests which disturb the crowd?

 

Or are you saying that any and all protests are welcome?

 

In which case, say goodbye to public events.

 

I think we aren't going to agree.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sampson said:

It's not false equivalence, you've literally just said it's equivalence!

You've literally just said women's suffragettes disturbing a public event like women's suffrage disrupting Epsom by jumping in front of the King's horse for example is a slippery slope and the same as flat earthers disturbing a public event.

Of course the reason for the protest should matter!
 

Nah you're wrong there, the reason for protesting is irrelevant. All causes being protest should always be on a even playing field, its strength in numbers whether they become legitimate from that point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, westernpark said:

This comparison is not false equivalence because you are effectively saying that anyone infringing on the pitch regardless of the cause, is subject to the things you have set out.

What would your reaction have been if the individual was wearing a Ukraine shirt? 

 

People shouldn't invade the public space and inconvenience thousands of others to make their point. Whatever their point.

 

If someone's ideas require expression, our free society allows people to stand for office, to protest in the public square or to advertise.

 

To applaud such protests because they are somehow noble invites a decision on what is noble enough to protest about.  Whose call is that?

 

And what kind of crass unthinking selfishness assumes that football fans want to stop and watch a protest?

 

 

 

Edited by Vacamion
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

But who is the arbiter of which ideas are to be welcomed as the subject of protests which disturb the crowd?

 

Or are you saying that any and all protests are welcome?

 

In which case, say goodbye to public events.

 

I think we aren't going to agree.

You're talking about 2 different things. The arbitrator is both the individual and public opinion on it and the legality of which they're protesting (i.e. if they aren't comitting health crimes or protesting against public safety measures). You were the one who responded to a post calling him a patriot saying he wasn't because he protested, not the reasoning - you were making a moral judgement on him simply because he protests and therefore were also making an equivalence for moral judgement against those who protested for women's suffrage at Epsom.

 

8 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

People shouldn't invade the public space and inconvenience thousands of others to make their point. Whatever their point.

 

If someone's ideas require expression, our free society allows people to stand for office, to protest in the public square or to advertise.

 

To applaud such protests because they ate somehow noble invites a decision on what is noble enough to protest about.  Whose call is that?

 

And what kind of crass unthinking selfishness assumes that football fans want to stop and watch a protest?

 

 

 

So again - it's not false equivalence then, you've said it doesn't matter the cause if you disrupt public event it's crass unthinking and selfish. You've just called the women's suffragettes disrupting Epsom crass unthinking and selfish. Pretty straightforward for everyone to see.

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...