That’s just based on your assumption from general stats.
You're simply wrong. I don't think you know how statistics work.Of course that’s absolutely ridiculous. And that’s exactly what why using general stats is stupid idea.
I believe he wasn't criminally convicted. So the club wersme just stating the bleeding obvious.
But do I believe he didn't threaten to rape his partner? Of course not. The recording has no explanation or justification (not even a feeble unbelievable one) and he hasn't even tried to explain it. Pure and simple he is a scumbag I want nowhere near the club.
I was referring to the people arguing in bad faith, and from what i recall of your posts, you don't do that. I should have been less flippant and clearer in who I was referring to, apologies.Or maybe it's because it's kind of a catch-22 question with a simple answer: you most likely can't? I don't think there is an argument on earth that would work. Most people's minds are made up and I'm assuming most of them are not survivors of SA
Of course I tried providing an answer, because I'm an amoral idiot
Was he player of the month in la liga?As if he wasn't la liga player of the month.
The agenda against him personally doesn't make him any less of a world class talent on the pitch.
On the pitch he would be unreal for us. Just as he was before the incident.
The club specifically said: "Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged."
That's a pretty definitive statement that goes beyond just "all charges were dropped". If you believe he's a scumbag fair enough, does not change the fact that the club you support believes, in their own words, that he did not commit the offences. If the club believes he is not guilty then the player should have every right to play for the club again. On one side you have all charges being dropped and the club being definitive in what they believe, on the other you have your belief that he's a scumbag. The later should not dictate whether he plays for us again.
Now admittedly actually being cynical, were you prepared to stop supporting the club when Ronaldo came back? By every metric what he did can be argued to be equally or worse than what Greenwood was accused of. I'd like to understand where your moral stance begins and stops.
If this was someone like Mateo Mejia do you think all these people would have invested so much time discussing this and bending over backwards to think of ways he could come back? Me neither.
It's literally because he's good at football and that's all that matters to some people. Hopefully they can expand their horizons at some point.
They have reconciled, I believe are engaged and have since had a child together.
Have you seen the images as well?Thank you.
Another poster states that it is alleged he did far worse. If we can keep the language appropriate to this forum, do we have compelling evidence of far worse behavior, or is it our sense that given the verbal abuse which we all heard that he must have done far worse?
What I’m getting at is that if we know he verbally abused her, which we do, and if we know they have reconciled, which seems to be the case, if she can forgive him perhaps others can forgive him as well. Perhaps.
Was he player of the month in la liga?
Do you believe their statement or do you not believe it?
I believe the club statement was written by committee including the PR department. Infant it would be amazing if it wasn't. And he wasn't convicted due to the charges being dropped, so they were factually correct as that was what they were specifically talking about.
Do I believe that club are party to some secret evidence, that nobody can know about, because reason, that means the recording doesn't mean exactly what it sounds like?
No. Not a chance.
Was he player of the month in la liga?
Yeah see the problem is, is that your putting this down to a 'difference of opinion'It's simply recognising and acknowledging that our personal experiences will affect and influence our judgement. Respecting an opinion which is different from your own doesn't mean you have to agree with it? And not changing your opinion based on someone's personal experience doesn't invalidate that experience or mean that their opinion doesn't matter or isn't valued.
Flameinthesun has summed it up very well in his response.
It's possible to both value and respect someone's opinion which is different from your own while not agreeing with it.
Also what happened to the poll? Surely that's a fair democratic way to get peoples general opinions on the case without the toxic back and forths? It's not as if anybody was using the poll results as leverage in their arguments from what I could see. It was just running in the background.
Wasn't there a poll here?
Yes - it has gone away.
So I see - but why?
Dude, why on earth are you so invested in Greenwood and in this thread? Of all the hills to die on, you choose supporting him?He wasn't La Liga player of the month. He was voted Getafe's player of the month.
Yes - it has gone away.
The results were about 56% yes - 44% no.
An approximately 10 point swing in the yes direction from the previous poll that was done in early September.
Dude, why on earth are you so invested in Greenwood and in this thread? Of all the hills to die on, you choose supporting him?
Which is basically meaningless swing considering the potentially massive margin of error on such a small sample size.
The bit bolded for me is where I struggle with your stance. Why are you taking the risk? I understand the other side of what you've put, but I'm not sure it's truly empathy for the poster if you're happy to take that risk.I can't speak for others but for myself.
The poster's personal experience will have a direct impact on how they view this situation. Any person should be able to be empathetic to the posters response to this case and their decision to not want the player back. I understand that as many on here have already stated.
Whilst being empathetic to the poster's stance, on the other side there is a player who has not been charged and is innocent until proven guilty (and people can discuss the semantics of "innocent"), we also have a club who have categorically stated that they believe the player did not do what he was originally charged for. Whilst I have to hope that they have taken that stance in good faith, I also believe it to be far fetched that the United CEO lied, United as a club were comfortable with him lying, the CPS would have to remain silent whilst knowing the United statement was inaccurate, the alleged victim and her family would have to be quiet as well. For me I believe that the likelihood of that occurring to be small. If it did happen, then we may as well all stop supporting United as a club.
So you have a player who has had all charges dropped, a club who have said he did not do what he was originally charged for, a partner and supporting family who have appeared to have moved on past the incident. To me the player has the right to resume his career at United and be judged on his performances. The issue with the incident is its not as simple as he did it, he didn't do it, yet a lot of posters want everyone to come down on one side or the other. Its never going to happen by the very nature of the incident. Can I say he 100% didn't do it? No. Just as I believe I can't say 100% he did do it. Hence, putting my trust in the club, for good or for bad who, regardless of the logical leaps people want to make, they have clearly got more information and context on what occurred and therefore are in a better position than myself to make a decision. My only issue is how United presented their statement. They concluded he did not do what he was charged for, therefore they should have allowed him back instead of leaving things in limbo as they did. Alternatively, if they believe it likely he did do it they should have cut ties with him (although there is an argument about whether they could legally do so).
I do understand that, but are footballing reasons more important the chance he might have done wrong in your eyes? Or is it the chance he's done something wrong in your eyes is small enough that footballing reasons are more important?I responded to Peter van der Gea's post. I stated that I would have Greenwood back for footballing reasons. I am not devaluing anyone else's opinion on the matter; I'm merely presenting my opinion: if there isn't conclusive evidence of guilt, then I would have him back.
How or what do you value and respect about it though? I feel like this just gets said sometimes without a real explanation, but really just a nicety to say, when you don't really take it into consideration to forming your opinion.It's simply recognising and acknowledging that our personal experiences will affect and influence our judgement. Respecting an opinion which is different from your own doesn't mean you have to agree with it? And not changing your opinion based on someone's personal experience doesn't invalidate that experience or mean that their opinion doesn't matter or isn't valued.
Flameinthesun has summed it up very well in his response.
It's possible to both value and respect someone's opinion which is different from your own while not agreeing with it.
Also what happened to the poll? Surely that's a fair democratic way to get peoples general opinions on the case without the toxic back and forths? It's not as if anybody was using the poll results as leverage in their arguments from what I could see. It was just running in the background.
That's fair enough and thank you for being candid. She's not his wife by the way, but I understand the point. The whole discussion is about supporting a football club though, so I guess if them being back together is enough to not be bothered about his previous alleged actions - that's a reasonable point of view. I would say there's still far too much risk for me to give someone my full support, so better he's not at the club in my view.I don't really value his opinion on the matter in this case. Should I value Peter's opinion on the Greenwood case more than let's say Greenwood's wife and mother of his child, together with her family for instance? After all she came back to him, had a baby with him and is now living abroad with him. Peter is talking about supporting a football club.
Not just the club, he should probably have been one of the first players in the PL Hall of Fame yet has been repeatedly snubbed from it and I haven't seen him around on interviews/punditry/the football scene in ages.
Which is basically meaningless swing considering the potentially massive margin of error on such a small sample size.
To introduce another random poll at an unannounced random juncture in a long running conversation which many except the zealots have become tired with misses out on the sober centre.
That combined with the fact some people who already voted may not have realised the poll was new making any results even more nebulous.
All in all it was an awful idea which only served to agitate a shit thread on an unsavoury subject.
I guess my question was more why you've spent so much time trying to defend someone that, whether he's an actual domestic abuser or not (I think he is) you've never met and comes across as a dreadful person anyway (unless you think the audio was faked too).Probably a question for you to reflect on yourself if you're asking why people are discussing Greenwood in the Greenwood thread. If it's not your cup of tea there are loads of other threads on the caf.
There are multiple ways of looking at it - one of which is the obvious hypothesis that people's views are going to evolve as time goes on and the original story is gradually replaced by his football performances, which when juxtaposed against United's lack of goals this year, is likely to generate sizable movement in the numbers. This is backed up by random comments others have made in this thread in recent months about wanting him back on football grounds. Such comments were pretty rare in the summer.
The best way to correct that was to leave it open and edit the thread title to mention the new poll to allow more votes, not close it down !
IMO it was a good idea to give a clearer picture on the general view of Redcafe and I note that people on all sides of the discussion were interested in the result so really bizarre to delete it.
Dude, why on earth are you so invested in Greenwood and in this thread?
Grand. I think the less energy given to the exiled alleged rapist the better. It's a shame he is such a focal point for the forum. We should follow the club's lead and show him the door.
He does, I just find the energy expended defending someone that seems to be a 24 carat shit that he's never met could be better used, but I suppose I'm in here too...It is a Greenwood discussion thread, so he has a right to discuss him just as you or anyone else can.
But to what end? I admit it is probably mildly interesting to know where the caf as a whole stands on the issue, but I'm not even sure this poll would've provided that insight. And it's definitely not representative of the whole fanbase.The best way to correct that was to leave it open and edit the thread title to mention the new poll (as happens in many other poll threads) to allow more votes, not close it down !
IMO it was a good idea to give a clearer picture on the general view of Redcafe and I note that people on all sides of the discussion were interested in the result so really bizarre to delete it.
The best way to correct that was to leave it open and edit the thread title to mention the new poll (as happens in many other poll threads) to allow more votes, not close it down !
IMO it was a good idea to give a clearer picture on the general view of Redcafe and I note that people on all sides of the discussion were interested in the result so really bizarre to delete it.
Everything else notwithstanding, this argument has absolutely been used - blatantly so - in this thread.
If we can't agree on anything else, we should at least be able to agree that this argument is horribly flawed and should be considered a red flag whenever it appears.
It's very common for DV victims to get back together with their abusers. I mean - how can people not know this by now? But if they don't, for fecks' sake, do some research - and stop using this argument.
I believe you make it more of a focal point by closing down threads and deleting polls
Although i do get the point that moderating 2 threads is a pain
It was upsetting to some, who viewed it as inappropriate. Beyond that, the results weren't likely to change much given that several hundred posters had already voted, so best to move on.
But to what end? I admit it is probably mildly interesting to know where the caf as a whole stands on the issue, but I'm not even sure this poll would've provided that insight. And it's definitely not representative of the whole fanbase.
Its a sensitive subject, so perhaps it was best to remove it. The results were already in anyway, so there was nothing else the poll could've accomplished.
Hm. Can't say I understand why it would upset anyone - but fair enough.
Like I said above, my guess would be something like 6/10 in favour of bringing him back.
On here, I mean. Without qualifications or caveats - just "yeah" or "nay".
If you did the same thing on FB or X/Twitter (feck, I hate having to do that) - it would probably be 8/10.
That's the reality of the thing - I suspect.
We can't hide from reality, dude - that will never get us anywhere.
Are you comfortable answering the follow up question I asked you?
"Now admittedly actually being cynical, were you prepared to stop supporting the club when Ronaldo came back? By every metric what he did can be argued to be equally or worse than what Greenwood was accused of. I'd like to understand where your moral stance begins and stops."
