Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is football still in the dark ages? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Football, Tennis and Snowboarding still have the highest levels of inter-team and inter-player argument, violence and sheer bad sportsmen ship.
    I've seen so, so, SO many cocky, arrogant football and tennis players at our school, other schools coming to play and on TV...
    Snowboarding - Don't even get me started on the tossers at Resorts who think they're "boss"...

    You don't see that kind of ****-head attitude in other sports nearly as much. In biking, certainly not. When we finish a race, we all meet up have a drink and a laugh and anyone who boasts about winning, or really going on about how they shouldn't have lost outcasts themselves.

    For once, Maggie, I agree - Football, certainly, still is in the Dark Ages.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Cultural relativism is such an inane concept. We have every right to tell them it's wrong to execute people for their sexuality. In which civilised society could this ever be deemed morally sound?
    Can you define "civilised society"?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cttp_ngaf)
    Can you define "civilised society"?
    One that doesn't execute people for their sexuality is a start.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    Do we? If you think about it carefully, who knows whats right and wrong?
    There is no ambiguity with regards to executing people for their sexuality - it's wrong, plain and simple. It may be considered right by certain people within that society, but I certainly take the standpoint that my position is supreme. Do you think an ancient Aztec has the right to tell you that cutting someone's heart out (alive) in a human sacrificial ritual is morally right, and that you denouncing it is not supreme at all - even though it is quite clear that the act is morally wrong?

    Why should it be up to us to 'go civilise the barbarians' or whatever?
    If we are going to do it - then it should be to protect human rights and minorities who are abused within that society. If we don't stand up for them, who else will?

    Would you go to a tribe in africa and tell them not to do their form of initiation (such as genital mutilation)? After all it is right for them, its not right for us though is it?
    Yes, I would be happy to tell them that.

    Say Britain suddenly formed a tradition where people are flayed alive and their skins are displayed on front doors to bring luck. Even though it is quite clearly a gross breach of human rights and a disgusting act - someone from Norway, for example, cannot inform us that what we are doing is morally wrong?

    So should we impose our western rules on every society on earth? Where do we draw the line eh?
    Perhaps not through bloodshed, unless totally required - but through non-violent means, then yes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You get more poorly educated people playing football than other sports I guess?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    One that doesn't execute people for their sexuality is a start.
    I thought so, haha.


    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    There is no ambiguity with regards to executing people for their sexuality - it's wrong, plain and simple. It may be considered right by certain people within that society, but I certainly take the standpoint that my position is supreme. Do you think an ancient Aztec has the right to tell you that cutting someone's heart out (alive) in a human sacrificial ritual is morally right, and that you denouncing it is not supreme at all - even though it is quite clear that the act is morally wrong?
    Where did you acquire your knowledge of absolute right and wrong? Or to what objective authority do you refer to find it out?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cttp_ngaf)
    Where did you acquire your knowledge of absolute right and wrong? Or to what objective authority do you refer to find it out?
    Get out of your ivory tower and think about this pragmatically. Are you honestly telling me that you cannot apply a moral distinction between executing people for their sexuality and allowing them to live in peace?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    There is no ambiguity with regards to executing people for their sexuality - it's wrong, plain and simple. It may be considered right by certain people within that society, but I certainly take the standpoint that my position is supreme.
    Dont get me wrong, i agree with you, but why should our opinion be supreme over theres. There is no guidebook to life telling us how to live. It is simply our morals against theirs. And in their society, it is morally right to do that. I dont think it will be like that forever though. Remember in Britain they used to drown witches, behead criminals etc but this country changed didnt it, without any outside influence.
    Do you think an ancient Aztec has the right to tell you that cutting someone's heart out (alive) in a human sacrificial ritual is morally right, and that you denouncing it is not supreme at all - even though it is quite clear that the act is morally wrong?
    No it isnt right. However i would not go into another society and tell them to disregard their traditions, beliefs and values. Obviously i would try and tell them why I think its wrong, but at the end of the day, its up to them. Oh tribal man, take my bible and allow me to westernise your barbaric society -_-

    If we are going to do it - then it should be to protect human rights and minorities who are abused within that society. If we don't stand up for them, who else will?
    LOL thats funny coming from a tory.


    Yes, I would be happy to tell them that.

    Say Britain suddenly formed a tradition where people are flayed alive and their skins are displayed on front doors to bring luck. Even though it is quite clearly a gross breach of human rights and a disgusting act - someone from Norway, for example, cannot inform us that what we are doing is morally wrong?
    I never said we couldnt tell qatar what they are doing is wrong, i meant we cant go over there and force them to change.
    And the above example doesnt fit. We are talking about western countries going into non-western societies and giving them our rules. England would be stopped from doing that before they even started.
    Perhaps not through bloodshed, unless totally required - but through non-violent means, then yes.
    Dont be naive, bloodshed is exactly how we will change these countries (if we do). However it seems that you wont rest until we've westernised every society on Earth that we consider is doing something wrong. Looks like a new age of colonialism to me.
    In england, we slaughter cows for food. How would you like it if some Hindus suddenly decided what we are doing is disgusting or morally wrong. Would you let them come here and spread their morals onto us? In india cows are sacred, and killing a cow is a crime punishable by life in prison (it used to be punishable by death). So why shouldnt they come over here and imprison us? (and dont say its not the same as killing a human, because to them, killing a cow is equal/worse than killing a human- their morals against ours, right?)
    Or is it simply that western rules= correct rules? I hope not
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cttp_ngaf)
    I thought so, haha.


    I will rep you for that
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Get out of your ivory tower and think about this pragmatically. Are you honestly telling me that you cannot apply a moral distinction between executing people for their sexuality and allowing them to live in peace?
    Where did you acquire your knowledge of absolute right and wrong? Or to what objective authority do you refer to find it out?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    So you two wouldn't speak out against a couple beating and torturing their young child? It's just different parenting styles right? Who are we to say they are wrong and we are right? Leave them to it?

    Of course not, we speak out and decry such actions that infringe on people's basic human rights. We don't go over there and force them to change but neither do we sit idle and say nothing.

    All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Suffers from racism, violence and homophobia to a much higher extent than say tennis and other sports.
    because football fans express their identity and opinions through a common ground in football. its started wars ffs. teams represent the culture, territory, and social problems of the areas they are from through the fans. this has been taken away from english football but it still exists in the rest of the world.

    taking away that aspect of football brings it into a new dark age. football is nothing without the fans, for better or worse. its what makes football the worlds game.

    ********s watch tennis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    i thought you were going to talk about the technology used compared to other sports such as tennis or cricket.

    violence there may be, homophobia may exist in sub-groups of hardcore football hooligans but generally people don't care (and believe it or not gays can like football too) and i think you'll find there is no racism in football whatsoever.
    Last time I was at a glasgow rangers match, there were rangers fans shouting racist abuse at a black rangers player. So yes there is still racism. Just not to the same extent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say scouts can still be racist. I know of a case quite close to me but w/e.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    i thought you were going to talk about the technology used compared to other sports such as tennis or cricket.

    violence there may be, homophobia may exist in sub-groups of hardcore football hooligans but generally people don't care (and believe it or not gays can like football too) and i think you'll find there is no racism in football whatsoever.
    Do you honestly believe that?

    Just one example, and don't be so naive as to think that English football isn't affected by it too:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ca/8951098.stm
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jim-ie)
    because football fans express their identity and opinions through a common ground in football. its started wars ffs. teams represent the culture, territory, and social problems of the areas they are from through the fans. this has been taken away from english football but it still exists in the rest of the world.

    taking away that aspect of football brings it into a new dark age. football is nothing without the fans, for better or worse. its what makes football the worlds game.

    ********s watch tennis.
    And your reasoning behind this statement?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Violence and Racism are extremely rare in Football these days, it is only the Media and the Police who want anyone to believe otherwise. I follow England away, a group who have previously been notorious espicially for violence, yet the people that go these days are probably checked out as much as prospective teachers. We have to pass CRB checks before we can join the Membership club, and as much as a police caution at any stage and you're kicked out, normally without appeal, and that's the end of that. The only place i've ever seen trouble was in Russia and i've been all over the world.

    Yet in Germany, South Africa, the Switzerland qualifier this year and no doubt Denmark, Wales, Montenegro and Bulgaria next year, there will be coppers off on a freebie at tax-payers expense checking our passports every 5 seconds, and the media looking for any excuse for a story. It is within both of their interests that problems are still seen to exist, yet in reality they seldom do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Patrick Wallace)
    So you two wouldn't speak out against a couple beating and torturing their young child? It's just different parenting styles right? Who are we to say they are wrong and we are right? Leave them to it?

    Of course not, we speak out and decry such actions that infringe on people's basic human rights. We don't go over there and force them to change but neither do we sit idle and say nothing.

    All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
    There are no ethical absolutes. It's a fact of life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexx53)
    What the ****? Why should gay people try and pretend they're not gay? It's who they are and they should be allowed to get on with it.

    The statement to send out should be 'Why is homosexuality illegal in Qatar?', and 'let's put a stop to it', not 'Gays, if/when you go to Qatar, don't be gay'.
    Who is to say what Qatar should or shouldn't make illegal?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.