Glenn Hoddle

[Mike E]

54 minutes ago, Batman. said:

As humans every single thing that we think is. We can only perceive 0.0003% of light that exists. Us trying to understand why and how we are here or why we are how we are is infinite times more ludicrous than an ant trying to understand how the Pyramids were built. Being an atheist is just as ridiculous as being an Islamic Extremist in the grand scheme of things. 

When disabled people ask why they are disabled, the essence of every "acceptable" answer is "bad luck." This force (luck) is, in essence, just as abstract or real as karma. Why one is offensive and one isn't, in my opinion, seems odd.

"You have bad luck and everyone else has good luck." That explication seems even more unfair and anger inducing than the "past life sins" in my opinion.

Each to their own. You can only be offended if you have expectations of how other people should behave and of what they should believe.

Surely luck is happenstance, while karma is about decency in ones actions?

The idea that I just happen to be deaf is fine. The idea that I'm being punished amd deserve to be deaf for something nobody can possibly know about IS offensive.

For someone with an A-level in RE (or is it Ethics and Philosophy now?), you seem to have little emotional intelligence.

[Leonard Venkhater]

2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Yes. The idea that one will face an eternity of punishment based on the mistakes made whilst in existence is weird. 

What's more, the notion that a perfectly innocent child that would love nothing more than to be abled is to face a life time of invasive care, medical treatments and struggle is simply because he was a bad person previously is terrifying. What awful things could we then do to that child if we are to treat him as such? He/she is innocent and deserves all the compassion we afford able bodied people.

One of the many rules that defines British culture, or indeed the majority of world culture, is that they are "innocent until proven guilty". In the case of a young disabled child there is no crime for which he has committed and is therefore completely innocent. I can't even believe I am having to justify any of this.

In the case of somebody omitting a sin (crime) in this life then it is in this existence in which we punish them (jail, community service, fines) and not in an "afterlife" for which they, or we, have no control over. Learn about context man and stop pushing the "I know more about cultures than you" card.

How many protestants does it take to change a light bulb?

None...They live in eternal darkness!

[Dreams of 1995]

1 hour ago, Batman. said:

As humans every single thing that we think is. We can only perceive 0.0003% of light that exists. Us trying to understand why and how we are here or why we are how we are is infinite times more ludicrous than an ant trying to understand how the Pyramids were built. Being an atheist is just as ridiculous as being an Islamic Extremist in the grand scheme of things. 

When disabled people ask why they are disabled, the essence of every "acceptable" answer is "bad luck." This force (luck) is, in essence, just as abstract or real as karma. Why one is offensive and one isn't, in my opinion, seems odd.

"You have bad luck and everyone else has good luck." That explication seems even more unfair and anger inducing than the "past life sins" in my opinion.

Each to their own. You can only be offended if you have expectations of how other people should behave and of what they should believe.

No it is not. It is because they are born with some form of condition - a medical defect if you will. It is never down to simply bad luck. A doctor won't go: "Well, Geoff, we don't know why you were born with a gap in your spine and you can't walk, just bad luck I guess" - they'll diagnose Geoff with spina bifida and begin to treat, to the best of human capabilities. 

Only you have rationalised it as "bad luck". The rest of the more morally in tune of us attribute it to a medical diagnosis. The idea that it is simply "bad luck" only exists in your head because it provides some justification to as why past life sins could be just as acceptable. It's a strawman argument.

The rest of it is just pure nonsense and probably warrants a discussion in I Can't Believe It's Not Football section but it definitely deserves a mention for being one of the more ridiculous of sentences posted on here. Shocker.

 

[Batman.]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

Only you have rationalised it as "bad luck". The rest of the more morally in tune of us attribute it to a medical diagnosis. The idea that it is simply "bad luck" only exists in your head because it provides some justification to as why past life sins could be just as acceptable. It's a strawman argument.

Why does the medical defect only happen in some people and not others? If you ask the question "why" long enough, the answer will eventually refer to luck.

Just like if you ask the question "why am I offended" long enough, rather than going with your initial ego-led instinct of being offended, you'll soon realise that you being offended is absolutely ridiculous. 

[Batman.]

28 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Surely luck is happenstance, while karma is about decency in ones actions?

The idea that I just happen to be deaf is fine. The idea that I'm being punished amd deserve to be deaf for something nobody can possibly know about IS offensive.

For someone with an A-level in RE (or is it Ethics and Philosophy now?), you seem to have little emotional intelligence.

You've answered your own question.

"The idea..."

Everything is an idea. You've been programmed to perceive some ideas as offensive, and some as not being. Once you deprogram this, you just accept them as ideas again.

Hoddle meant absolutely no malice in what he said. It's just an idea that he subscribes to. If you're so ignorant and arrogant to believe he has no right to believe nor publicly discuss the idea, I personally would suggest that it's you with the issue, not him. 

Furthermore, if you choose to be offended, that's your decision. It's your right to be. Just like it's mine not to perceive it as offensive.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Batman.

[Oldgregg86]

51 minutes ago, Batman. said:

Everything is an idea. You've been programmed to perceive some ideas as offensive, and some as not being. Once you deprogram this, you just accept them as ideas again.

I haven't been programmed to find anything offensive. I'm more than capable of thinking for myself. Many disabled people I spoke to have been offended and hurt by his comments. I was offended to think young people could hear these comments and treat disabled people like they deserve to be disabled. It's your own fault , karma's a bitch. Society has improved massively since I was a child pushing my sister around in a wheelchair and ignorance was a massive issue.  You are showing massive ignorance on this nobody else.

He's entitled to his " ideas" . People are entitled to be offended

Edited October 29, 2018 by Oldgregg86

[Oldgregg86]

Can just imagine Glenn meeting the disabled England fans and giving little Johnny, sat in his wheelchair a cheeky hair ruffle. Shame you where such a prick in the 1600s Johnny. That could be you out there playing for England. Shame your legs don't work. Make sure your nice in this life, there's a good lad

This started by Batman commenting on my comment about saying maybe it was karma that made glenn get ill. So why can't Glenn get ill through karma and why does that offend you if it's just an ideology. Have you been programmed to get offeneded. Do you not see the irony in that you got offended by a comment I made about karma coming for Glenn ?

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Oldgregg86

[Mike E]

1 hour ago, Batman. said:

You've answered your own question.

"The idea..."

Everything is an idea. You've been programmed to perceive some ideas as offensive, and some as not being. Once you deprogram this, you just accept them as ideas again.

Hoddle meant absolutely no malice in what he said. It's just an idea that he subscribes to. If you're so ignorant and arrogant to believe he has no right to believe nor publicly discuss the idea, I personally would suggest that it's you with the issue, not him. 

Furthermore, if you choose to be offended, that's your decision. It's your right to be. Just like it's mine not to perceive it as offensive.

You played the 'I'm more intelligent than you' card and you think I'M arrogant?

We've been discussing these ideas on here all day. Nobody has said he cannot believe what he believes, only that he (and the idea) deserves criticism.

I'm not 'programmed' in any such way, I just choose science over fiction. I reserve my own right to think he's a pillock for believing without evidence that being deaf is my fault.

You say he meant no malice, but a chosen belief like that, based on comes from a lack of empathy at best and malice at worst.

If I had come on and said I believed he deserved to be ill for his comments and the effect they had, you'd surely find that abhorrent rather than excuse them? And that would be a claim based on things that HAVE happened in THIS life, rather than the utter BS of 'past life sins'.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Mike E

[Leonard Venkhater]

Just now, Mike E said:

You played the 'I'm more intelligent than you' card and you think I'M arrogant?

We've been discussing these ideas on here all day. Nobody has said he cannot believe what he believes, only that he (and the idea) deserves criticism.

I'm not 'programmed' in any such way, I just choose science over fiction. I reserve my own right to think he's a pillock for believing without evidence that being deaf is my fault.

You say he meant no malice, but a chosen belief like that, based on comes from a lack of empathy at best and malice at worst.

If I had come on and said I believed he deserved to be ill for his comments and the effect they had, you'd surely find that abhorrent rather than excuse them? And that would be a claim based on things that HAVE happened in THIS life, rather than the utter BS of 'past life sins'.

BOOOM!

[Batman.]

3 hours ago, Mike E said:

You played the 'I'm more intelligent than you' card and you think I'M arrogant?

We've been discussing these ideas on here all day. Nobody has said he cannot believe what he believes, only that he (and the idea) deserves criticism.

I'm not 'programmed' in any such way, I just choose science over fiction. I reserve my own right to think he's a pillock for believing without evidence that being deaf is my fault.

You say he meant no malice, but a chosen belief like that, based on comes from a lack of empathy at best and malice at worst.

If I had come on and said I believed he deserved to be ill for his comments and the effect they had, you'd surely find that abhorrent rather than excuse them? And that would be a claim based on things that HAVE happened in THIS life, rather than the utter BS of 'past life sins'.

1. When did I say I was "more intelligent than you?" I didn't, you've just chosen to take the modern day approach of "take what he said, twist it to mean what I want it to mean in order to suit my own argument." Try arguing against what I actually say, rather than creating your own thing to argue against.

2. You have no knowledge on his belief system, nor where it comes from. Read up on those belief systems that believe reincarnation to be true. Learn about how it effects their attitude to life and treatment to others, as well as their general philosophy. 

3. As stated, the perception range of human beings is so comically small, to "trust in science" when it attempts to deal with anything outside of our 0.0003% perception range is ridiculous. The creation of our planet and our place within it is completely out of that perception range. Be it chance, creationism, or something unimaginable to ourselves, we will never know. For you to suggest that the concept of past lives is "total BS" is absolutely ridiculous. You have no idea. Absolutely none. And as a human, like the rest of us, you are far too unintelligent to ever know. 

4. You are entitled to believe he's a pollock. I have no intention of trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing out why I think other people are wrong for criticising him without having any knowledge of the background to his opinions. 

5. Nobody has really managed to tell me why what he said is so offensive. He thinks people have more than one life. So what? He thinks that any sins you commit in one life may lead to misfortune/s in future lives. So what? Had he have said "I believe in reincarnation," nobody would have blinked an eyelid. In fact, people would probably have dismissed him as some Hippie Buddhist type. For me I fail to see why this is any more offensive than telling someone they will suffer after death if they commit sins in this life, or telling someone there is definitely nothing after death.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Batman.

[Batman.]

3 hours ago, Oldgregg86 said:

Can just imagine Glenn meeting the disabled England fans and giving little Johnny, sat in his wheelchair a cheeky hair ruffle. Shame you where such a prick in the 1600s Johnny. That could be you out there playing for England. Shame your legs don't work. Make sure your nice in this life, there's a good lad

This started by Batman commenting on my comment about saying maybe it was karma that made glenn get ill. So why can't Glenn get ill through karma and why does that offend you if it's just an ideology. Have you been programmed to get offeneded. Do you not see the irony in that you got offended by a comment I made about karma coming for Glenn ?

 

Your first comment is so simplistic it's not worthy of a direct response.

My original question asked to you was asked without the least bit of agitation on my part, nor with me being offended about what you said. Again, a (wrong) perception on your part.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Batman. said:

He thinks people have more than one life. So what? He thinks that any sins you commit in one life may lead to misfortune/s in future lives. So what?

The FA quite rightly sacked him. 

[Batman.]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

The FA quite rightly sacked him. 

This is the same FA who we constantly claim are completely incompetent, inept, corrupt, and lack a sense of judgement.

All of a sudden, when it suits your personal point of view, their decision making is spot on. A similar hypocrisy often displayed with attitudes towards our media.

 

[Mike E]

17 minutes ago, Batman. said:

1. When did I say I was "more intelligent than you?" I didn't, you've just chosen to take the modern day approach of "take what he said, twist it to mean what I want it to mean in order to suit my own argument." Try arguing against what I actually say, rather than creating your own thing to argue against.

2. You have no knowledge on his belief system, nor where it comes from. Read up on those belief systems that believe reincarnation to be true. Learn about how it effects their attitude to life and treatment to others, as well as their general philosophy. 

3. As stated, the perception range of human beings is so comically small, to "trust in science" when it attempts to deal with anything outside of our 0.0003% perception range is ridiculous. The creation of our planet and our place within it is completely out of that perception range. Be it chance, creationism, or something unimaginable to ourselves, we will never know. For you to suggest that the concept of past lives is "total BS" is absolutely ridiculous. You have no idea. Absolutely none. And as a human, like the rest of us, you are far too unintelligent to ever know. 

4. You are entitled to believe he's a pollock. I have no intention of trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing out why I think other people are wrong for criticising him without having any knowledge of the background to his opinions. 

5. Nobody has really managed to tell me why what he said is so offensive. He thinks people have more than one life. So what? He thinks that any sins you commit in one life may lead to misfortune/s in future lives. So what? Had he have said "I believe in reincarnation," nobody would have blinked an eyelid. In fact, people would probably have dismissed him as some Hippie Buddhist type. For me I fail to see why this is any more offensive than telling someone they will suffer after death if they commit sins in this life, or telling someone there is definitely nothing after death.

1. You said 'I know more about these faiths than you'. I took that as playing a false trump card, especially as you presume to know so much more than me based on not much, leading me to...

2. I know enough about those faiths to know they are as daft as the Abrahamic religions, having covered them throughout my GCSEs, A levels, and my time teaching about them. I was skipping the 'knowledge' part because that bit is boring and we both 'know' them, hence nothing to debate. I moved on to the criticism part because that is where debate is to be had. This was also because I know first hand how those who follow those faiths treat disabled people in their everyday life in my time travelling through Asia several years ago (ie: they treat them like shit, because they 'were bad in a past life').

3. Science IS knowledge. As far as we know, there is no such concept as afterlife or pre-life or whatever. What I won't do is presume there is based on no evidence. Although I will admit that you are generally correct in this part, assuming that everything science tells us is false based on layman intuition is baffling. If that's not what you're doing, then the fact you're even arguing with me is even more baffling.

4. Fair enough.

5. It's offensive because it is assumes I am or was a bad person and deserve my disability. It's as offensive as the concept of heaven and hell, or the idea that a rape victim deserves it for wearing a short skirt. It is offensive because it places blame on the sufferer and doesn't acknowledge the effect such views can have on people (which I covered in the post you were quite dismissive of).

Edited October 29, 2018 by Mike E

[Oldgregg86]

24 minutes ago, Batman. said:

1. When did I say I was "more intelligent than you?" I didn't, you've just chosen to take the modern day approach of "take what he said, twist it to mean what I want it to mean in order to suit my own argument." Try arguing against what I actually say, rather than creating your own thing to argue against.

2. You have no knowledge on his belief system, nor where it comes from. Read up on those belief systems that believe reincarnation to be true. Learn about how it effects their attitude to life and treatment to others, as well as their general philosophy. 

3. As stated, the perception range of human beings is so comically small, to "trust in science" when it attempts to deal with anything outside of our 0.0003% perception range is ridiculous. The creation of our planet and our place within it is completely out of that perception range. Be it chance, creationism, or something unimaginable to ourselves, we will never know. For you to suggest that the concept of past lives is "total BS" is absolutely ridiculous. You have no idea. Absolutely none. And as a human, like the rest of us, you are far too unintelligent to ever know. 

4. You are entitled to believe he's a pollock. I have no intention of trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing out why I think other people are wrong for criticising him without having any knowledge of the background to his opinions. 

5. Nobody has really managed to tell me why what he said is so offensive. He thinks people have more than one life. So what? He thinks that any sins you commit in one life may lead to misfortune/s in future lives. So what? Had he have said "I believe in reincarnation," nobody would have blinked an eyelid. In fact, people would probably have dismissed him as some Hippie Buddhist type. For me I fail to see why this is any more offensive than telling someone they will suffer after death if they commit sins in this life, or telling someone there is definitely nothing after death.

Tbf that was a very good post

[Batman.]

10 minutes ago, Mike E said:

1. You said 'I know more about these faiths than you'. I took that as playing a false trump card, especially as you presume to know so much more than me based on not much, leading me to...

2. I know enough about those faiths to know they are as daft as the Abrahamic religions, having covered them throughout my GCSEs, A levels, and my time teaching about them. I was skipping the 'knowledge' part because that bit is boring and we both 'know' them, hence nothing to debate. I moved on to the criticism part because that is where debate is to be had. This was also because I know first hand how those who follow those faiths treat disabled people in their everyday life in my time travelling through Asia several years ago (ie: they treat them like shit, because they 'were bad in a past life').

3. Science IS knowledge. As far as we know, there is no such concept as afterlife or pre-life or whatever. What I won't do is presume there is based on no evidence. Although I will admit that you are generally correct in this part, assuming that everything science tells us is false based on layman intuition is baffling. If that's not what you're doing, then the fact you're even arguing with me is even more baffling.

4. Fair enough.

5. It's offensive because it is assumes I am or was a bad person and deserve my disability. It's as offensive as the concept of heaven and hell, or the idea that a rape victim deserves it for wearing a short skirt. It is offensive because it places blame on the sufferer and doesn't acknowledge the effect such views can have on people (which I covered in the post you were quite dismissive of).

The belief system assumes that all people carry sins from previous lives at at one stage or another we will all experience disabilities, misfortune, suffering as well as fortunes, riches, success and greed.

The reality is you're offended because you think he shouldn't have the opinion he does. Thus meaning you have a preconception of how people should think and behave, and it's based on your own personal upbringing and moral compass in life.

Ps. "Science is knowledge" is the most ridiculous thing you can possibly say. Even science would acknowledge that is not true. It's the pursuit of the knowledge we can acquire within our incredibly limited band of perception.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Batman.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Batman. said:

All of a sudden, when it suits your personal point of view, their decision making is spot on.

You asked 'so what'? I gave you the 'so what'. Whether it suits my personal point of view is neither here nor there. I just happen to think they were right. 

'So what' isn't an argument anyway. It's just a dismissal of other peoples right to not like what Hoddle said. Here's a link to what he said:-

https://www.theguardian.com/football/1999/jan/30/newsstory.sport7

He actually got the backing of the FA initially even when disability, welfare and fans groups were calling for his sacking. He repeated his abhorrent views on more than one occasion. Unfortunately he wasn't bright enough to realise his views on Karma and Reincarnation were just views. They weren't facts. When you spout the unknowable as fact and then apply it to certain individuals who you have decided to single out through prejudice then you will indeed 'reap what you sow'. In his view he is now reaping what he sowed when he made those comments. I wouldn't be so crass and arrogant as to agree with him. I hope he gets well soon. 

 

 

[Batman.]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

You asked 'so what'? I gave you the 'so what'. Whether it suits my personal point of view is neither here nor there. I just happen to think they were right. 

'So what' isn't an argument anyway. It's just a dismissal of other peoples right to not like what Hoddle said. Here's a link to what he said:-

https://www.theguardian.com/football/1999/jan/30/newsstory.sport7

He actually got the backing of the FA initially even when disability, welfare and fans groups were calling for his sacking. He repeated his abhorrent views on more than one occasion. Unfortunately he wasn't bright enough to realise his views on Karma and Reincarnation were just views. They weren't facts. When you spout the unknowable as fact and then apply it to certain individuals who you have decided to single out through prejudice then you will indeed 'reap what you sow'. In his view he is now reaping what he sowed when he made those comments. I wouldn't be so crass and arrogant as to agree with him. I hope he gets well soon. 

 

 

When did he ever state that his opinions on Karma and Reincarnation were facts?

[Mike E]

2 minutes ago, Batman. said:

The belief system assumes that all people carry sins from previous lives at at one stage or another we will all experience disabilities, misfortune, suffering as well as fortunes, riches, success and greed.

The reality is you're offended because you think he shouldn't have the opinion he does. Thus meaning you have a preconception of how people should think and behave, and it's based on your own personal upbringing and moral compass in life.

Ps. "Science is knowledge" is the most ridiculous thing you can possibly say. Even science would acknowledge that is not true. It's he pursuit of the knowledge we can acquire within our incredibly limited band of perception.

The bit I left not bold, I can't disagree with, but I've no idea why you present it as wrong.

The bit in bold just shows that you are so determined to argue that you create them where they are not.

I don't think we'll get much further, but I've enjoyed this conversation. Broken up a dull day.

Best keep on topic: Get well Glenn, you pillock.

[JBiz]

@Batman. doesn’t anyone in a position of such responsibility working in public spotlight require a certain public etiquette that doesn’t offend people?

 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Batman. said:

When did he ever state that his opinions on Karma and Reincarnation were facts?

"You and I have been physically given two hands and two legs and half-decent brains. Some people have not been born like that for a reason. The karma is working from another lifetime. I have nothing to hide about that. It is not only people with disabilities. What you sow, you have to reap"

Unknowables as fact. Semantics won't help your argument. 

 

 

[Batman.]

Just now, Mike E said:

The bit I left not bold, I can't disagree with, but I've no idea why you present it as wrong.

The bit in bold just shows that you are so determined to argue that you create them where they are not.

I don't think we'll get much further, but I've enjoyed this conversation. Broken up a dull day.

Best keep on topic: Get well Glenn, you pillock.

The bit in bold is a direct quote from yourself? How on earth can I create that? Your entire argument has been based on science being the foundation of why Hoddle's views and anybody else's views (that aren't based on Science/ atheism) are wrong. 

I'm simply stating why that's a ridiculous stance to carry.

[Batman.]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

"You and I have been physically given two hands and two legs and half-decent brains. Some people have not been born like that for a reason. The karma is working from another lifetime. I have nothing to hide about that. It is not only people with disabilities. What you sow, you have to reap"

Unknowables as fact. Semantics won't help your argument. 

 

 

He starts the entire passage with "it is my belief that...."

You have conveniently cut that part out.

How much clearer can it be?

[Batman.]

5 minutes ago, Biz said:

@Batman. doesn’t anyone in a position of such responsibility working in public spotlight require a certain public etiquette that doesn’t offend people?

 

But I don't believe it's offensive. I have explained in great detail why I think this.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression by it's very nature allows us to speak with the risk of offending others.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Batman.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Batman. said:

He starts the entire passage with "it is my belief that...."

You have conveniently cut that part out.

How much clearer can it be?

So what? You said his words had been misinterpreted. They haven't. Saying 'it is my belief' doesn't excuse the nonsense that then spewed from his mouth. 

Do you know what you're even defending? Is it freedom of speech? Hoddle's right to offend disabled people?