SHA Small Heath Alliance

It doesn't bother me or offend me one way or the other if I'm totally honest.

What was it in the end about a one minute delay for somebody to have a drink, it's really not the end of the world, we get far longer delays when a keeper fakes an injury so managers can gather the team for a talk.

But I totally get the point of view it's the players personal choice to follow practices based on the religion they follow not footballs.

And conversely are you saying everything should be planned around everyone individuals faith, commitments or birthday party plans?

Certain track and field athletes and I’m sure other sports people wouldn’t do meets on Sundays, the sports carried on

Where do we draw the line with trying to be inclusive, everyone will want something different

In the Netherlands, their non-league system has different leagues that play on Saturdays and Sundays due to historical differences between Protestant and Catholic areas. It's all very well for people to say religion is stupid, it's a personal choice, you can't accommodate everyone in everything, blah blah blah, but the reality is that religions are a massive part of human culture and they and their effects aren't disappearing any time soon.

Personally, I think it's a very small thing to ask to allow all players to take on water and nutrition at an agreed point in the match. That it's generating such outsized outrage, opposition, and controversy is genuinely weird.

When where the leagues formed and how many thousand customers does it impact

I said from the outset personally it’s not a big deal but my overall view is that personal views shouldn’t impact everyone else, religion, politics, favourite page 3 girl

You seem quite put out yourself

My Blue Heaven

And conversely are you saying everything should be planned around everyone individuals faith, commitments or birthday party plans?

Certain track and field athletes and I’m sure other sports people wouldn’t do meets on Sundays, the sports carried on

Where do we draw the line with trying to be inclusive, everyone will want something different

Our very own Dennis Bailey refused to play football on Sundays, didn’t he? Until we got to the Leyland daf final back in 1991

[quote
All religion is pretty much nonsense and shouldn't play a part in a football match. [/quote]

I agree...We have one argument where the crowd objected to religion being 'forced on them' and yet the Old Firm games arguably are only the spectacle they are because of religion, and the crowd revel in it.

Funny old world eh?

Sport Billy

[quote
All religion is pretty much nonsense and shouldn't play a part in a football match.

I agree...We have one argument where the crowd objected to religion being 'forced on them' and yet the Old Firm games arguably are only the spectacle they are because of religion, and the crowd revel in it.

Funny old world eh? [/quote]

Religion has relatively little to do with an Old Firm game and the Old Firm rivalry now, not in comparison to politics anyway.

ZamBlues

I was summarising his reductive view that all religion shouldn’t be tolerated because, in his opinion, they are based on imaginary friends.

So you're putting words in their mouth that they never said - that's not 'summarising'. And you've managed to do it again in this post - TheHeath didn't say or even imply that 'religion shouldn't be tolerated.' They said that they didn't think they should stop the match for religious reasons. If you can't see the huge difference between the two statements then a) you are never going to win an argument b) you are unlikely to change somebody's opinion c) you are unlikely to gain sympathy for your cause or point of view.

With the first instance of putting words in their mouth, you not only erroneously brought 'hate' into the discussion, you accused them of saying that they hated other people's freedom and 'should try out North Korea'.

In your latest comment in reply to someone else you say -

ZamBlues

The problem is what you are really saying there is that certain people will be excluded, because their religion doesn’t allow them to partake in the current state of football in a way that those of other religions/ non-believers are.

This 'what you are really saying' tactic just doesn't wash and once again you are completely inventing something and falsely attributing it to the person. This seems to be your only method of argument - making up incredibly damning things and falsely claiming that the person said them.

Let's turn your 'logic' back on you with a ridiculous example to emphasise how ridiculous your claim is -

A football player invents a new religion tomorrow called 'nonsense' and declares that throughout the months of March and April all followers of 'nonsense' have to sip water for 20 seconds every 2 minutes when playing sport. They recruit two other players from different clubs into their religion. The players then suggest to the league that the games they are playing in throughout March and April should be stopped every two minutes so they can sip water for twenty seconds throughout the game. Obviously, this would turn the game into a farce where the whole game would take about 4 hours and there wouldn't be more than 1 minutes 40 seconds of continuous play due to the religious interruptions.

If this was requested and was turned down, would you say that - 'certain people are being unfairly excluded, because their religion doesn’t allow them to partake in the current state of football in a way that those of other religions/ non-believers are'?

Because my counter-argument is that - it's not football that's the problem or religion in general , it's the specific religion that inconveniences everyone else. If your religion has such ridiculous rules that you can't play sport without inconveniencing all of the other players, fans, officials and everyone else involved then it's not anyone else's fault or problem except those who choose to follow that religion. They have to find a solution that doesn't inconvenience anyone else.

Phillystine

In the Netherlands, their non-league system has different leagues that play on Saturdays and Sundays due to historical differences between Protestant and Catholic areas. It's all very well for people to say religion is stupid, it's a personal choice, you can't accommodate everyone in everything, blah blah blah, but the reality is that religions are a massive part of human culture and they and their effects aren't disappearing any time soon.

This is the 'appeal to majority' or 'appeal to common belief' fallacy. Just because a large amount of people partake in religion does not prove that there is anything logical or sensible about that behaviour whatsoever.

Phillystine

Personally, I think it's a very small thing to ask to allow all players to take on water and nutrition at an agreed point in the match. That it's generating such outsized outrage, opposition, and controversy is genuinely weird.

It's not weird at all, but I can hazard a guess why you want to frame it that way. We are currently living in something akin to a two-tier society where certain minority groups have been given protected status (on an open and legal basis) but this favoured status is surreptitiously (less openly) being pushed way beyond what is at all reasonable, fair and just. This creates an understandable backlash from sections of the majority and some would say this was always part of the plan because then those partaking in the backlash can have detrimental labels inaccurately attached to them.

So there's nothing weird about it at all. People are simply protecting themselves and their culture however they can because they can see that it is under continuous attack and they can see that the enormous power of the state and the law and a large, hostile portion of society is behind it.

Football is a huge part of English culture. We invented the game. We are generally very tolerant of a lot of things, but that tolerance is currently being pushed to its limits from many angles. This hostile ideology from a different culture is currently trying to impose its will upon the game in ways that are not appreciated. It's only right that there's pushback at this particular moment in time and it would be weird and also very unsettling if there wasn't any. I think FIFO applies here.

This was a very big essay when you could have just simply said you don’t like muslims

Great big fecking LOL!

ZamBlues

This was a very big essay when you could have just simply said you don’t like muslims

Taking over the gaff. Not on bruv

WR Blue

This is the 'appeal to majority' or 'appeal to common belief' fallacy. Just because a large amount of people partake in religion does not prove that there is anything logical or sensible about that behaviour whatsoever.

Great stuff, but that's not at all what I was saying.

I'm an atheist and I'm not piping up to defend religious belief - I was just pointing out that the argument about not playing on Sundays doesn't really hold when we have neighbouring (culturally similar) countries where that happens and always has. Organised religion has historically been a big part of how club football developed in Europe. That includes in England.

Even if our personal belief is that religion is silly, that doesn't change the fact that it has had a big influence on how sport has developed, and that some people involved in sport will still be religious. This is not something new that the growth of Muslim players in the Premier League has brought over. Making a small accommodation for fasting players that allows everyone to take a nutrition break is the only new element.

If we're getting into assessing logical fallacies, the argument I was responding to was a slippery slope fallacy, making a false equivalence between playing a game as scheduled with an additional short break and moving fixtures altogether on the basis of individual whims. I think it is weird to make such a stretch over a largely inconsequential event.

WR Blue

It's not weird at all, but I can hazard a guess why you want to frame it that way. We are currently living in something akin to a two-tier society where certain minority groups have been given protected status (on an open and legal basis) but this favoured status is surreptitiously (less openly) being pushed way beyond what is at all reasonable, fair and just. This creates an understandable backlash from sections of the majority and some would say this was always part of the plan because then those partaking in the backlash can have detrimental labels inaccurately attached to them.

So there's nothing weird about it at all. People are simply protecting themselves and their culture however they can because they can see that it is under continuous attack and they can see that the enormous power of the state and the law and a large, hostile portion of society is behind it.

Football is a huge part of English culture. We invented the game. We are generally very tolerant of a lot of things, but that tolerance is currently being pushed to its limits from many angles. This hostile ideology from a different culture is currently trying to impose its will upon the game in ways that are not appreciated. It's only right that there's pushback at this particular moment in time and it would be weird and also very unsettling if there wasn't any. I think FIFO applies here.

Thanks for sharing and explaining your belief system. I hope you have a good week.

ZamBlues

This was a very big essay when you could have just simply said you don’t like muslims

Apparently you're sticking firmly to your solo argument tactic of trying to put words in other people's mouths. I hope you win the odd argument in the parallel universe where your imagined opponents are existing. Maybe you'll strike it lucky once in a while, like a broken clock, where the words you invent are coincidentally matching what the other person was thinking.