Chip
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,842
This feels like fecking Groundhog Day.
For you yes, for me the opposite.There's no doubt Ratcliffe is a piece of work alright. And yet between him and Qatar he's still the lesser of two evils.
I think its too plain and simple saying if you support the Qatar bid, you do not care about human rights... does that mean anyone living in the country or has any associations with them, do not care about human rights?
Also, if you look deeply into any owner who is putting up £5bn, you will see that none of them are clean.
For you yes, for me the opposite.
I specifically said outside the world cup, for obvious reasons, ie it's the fecking world cup.
M'Bappe to United? Absolutely bro
Does the SJR vs Qatar arguments boil down to whose pile of turd is bigger and smellier?
I don't wear Nike clothes because I support Nike. I don't frequent a Nike forum to talk about how much I love Nike. But I do need to wear clothes, much like I need to have a car and a mobile phone. And I need gas and electricity for my house, food from a supermarket. If I didn't do any of those things then I wouldn't be able to work, get paid, and take care of my family. Literally none of that has any relevance to who I want owning the football team I support, not matter how much you try and push the argument that it does.Saying supporting United under Qatar ownership means you dont care about Human rights is the same as wearing any piece of clothing from Asia, is the same as not caring from human rights?
Do you do your due diligence to check that the product you own is made by companies not violating any human rights?
The thing is that the reflex is to that binary. If you don't like one it is assumed you're a shill for the other. So bizarre. This thread is mostly just bizarre.
Wait, are you actually equating union issues with the persecution of gay people in Qatar?Indeed. He has horrible human rights and environmental record, whilst being a known liar and hypocrite. In bed with the Saudis where he will build another factory with awful conditions for construction workers.
It's the only comparible sporting event to the NFL that would have western eyes in Qatar, its the fecking NFL
The fact that people are no longer even bothered that the NFL ruined a man career and they are perfectly happy with NFL team owners (who come together to ruin the man career) owning PL clubs says a lot don't you think?
Just make it end
No, I don't get any NFL in my sphere, but I got that.
So who's going to mod the mods because you guys are not following your own guidance on these endless moral crusades?
NFL owners own PL clubs so they are in your sphere...
Just watch them be right back once we announce MbappeI am imagining the meltdown here when the sale is finally announced.
Come on. Criticizing Sir Jim is fine and hardly a moral crusade, its just that calling him a human rights abuser is a bit over the top.So who's going to mod the mods because you guys are not following your own guidance on these endless moral crusades?
Jesus dude, I know a tiny bit more about my life than you. The amount of Kapernik stuff was hugely out of kilter with the amount of NFL news and info I usually see.
There is no point talking if you're going to do both sides.
Good luck.
Fine moral arguments. It's just repetitive and you're drowning the thread and we've had these arguments so many times already.Moral crusades?
Good luck
Maybe by your own logic you don't really care about human rights since your don't seem to be outraged the same owners own PL clubs....
Support is proactive. So yeah I'd be sceptical.
So your argument is all money is tainted so who cares how tainted?
That's a fairly grim philosophy that has an even grimmer logical conclusion.
Come on. Criticizing Sir Jim is fine and hardly a moral crusade, its just that calling him a human rights abuser is a bit over the top.
To me the issue is that I don't see the same energy for someone that directly and actively sully democracy through heavy lobbying which has for goal to be allowed to pollute and therefore damage millions of people health just because the billions he currently have aren't enough.
Ratcliffe and Ineos are among the most cynical, greedy, unethical and long term damaging individuals on earth and yet people seem to brush it away. Unlike a "state" decision, Ratcliffe actions are his own actions, logic would dictate that no one can actually mitigate them but it's the opposite people are more willing to mitigate his decisions which affect millions.
To me it's pretty obvious that people aren't using logic, they are using affects because in the case of Qatar there is an identified victim for which people empathize.
I don't wear Nike clothes because I support Nike. I don't frequent a Nike forum to talk about how much I love Nike. But I do need to wear clothes, much like I need to have a car and a mobile phone. And I need gas and electricity for my house, food from a supermarket. If I didn't do any of those things then I wouldn't be able to work, get paid, and take care of my family. Literally none of that has any relevance to who I want owning the football team I support, not matter how much you try and push the argument that it does.
Moral crusades?
Fine moral arguments. It's just repetitive and you're drowning the thread and we've had these arguments so many times already.
Maybe try to move the discussion to Qatar Vs Ineos thread? This is just a suggestion but I think it might help.
So who's going to mod the mods because you guys are not following your own guidance on these endless moral crusades?
You're literally making no sense now.
You were doing better telling me what I was seeding in my media feeds.
Yeah. Its hard to argue against the existence of sportswashing when some posters literally sound like Qatari officials.Is it?