[Siderite]

It’s not summer until Wonder Goals brings out his list of players scouted from the latest version of Football Manager.

[Siderite]

Iron-awe wrote:

Aye the poster with no available profile info, sounds a really sound guy!!!

I think that’s because the user has either deleted the account or has been banned.

[Siderite]

Wouldn’t put this past Simon the ego or an associate trying to stir the pot because he wants the glory of being involved at the top.

[Siderite]

OK Dave.

[Siderite]

Is this Simon with a bruised ego because he’s not going to be mr big?

[Siderite]

LesBill?

Gurnelista on my login.

[Siderite]

https://x.com/SUFCOfficial/status/1795483733669056619

1 user thanked author for this post.

IronIronIron

[Siderite]

Rejoining would likely involve us having to consider joining the Schengen zone and the eurozone, which would cause issues among the population. The reduction of a complex situation to a simple binary question was always an issue with Brexit. It’s why we went from Brexiters arguing for Swiss style deals before the referendum to how Swiss style deals are Brexit lite and a betrayal of ‘the people’ afterwards. The referendum caused division and issues partially because the complex nature being presented as a simple one allowed politicians to not pin themselves down to specifics, and to portray ‘softer’ Brexit deals as being against democracy. If there was a more thorough campaign to drill what Brexit would mean before the referendum, it might have been less divisive, because we wouldn’t have had Farage, Hannan and co flip flop around from Swiss style deals to saying that’s against the ‘will of the people’ in a matter of months. It benefited them from a political point to the country’s detriment.

Similarly, any attemps to rejoin will have to be honest about the complexities. Talks of rejoining may sound pleasant to some, but it might sound less pleasant to others when you bring in what it would entail. The EU would want assurances and would be less lenient on opting out of aspects as before, because they wouldn’t want to deal with a state that changes its mind every decade. Also, the time span for rejoining. I suspect any attempts to rejoin wouldn’t be for years, and we should focus on rebuilding ties as much as possible, after years of pretending we can match the trade deals and links with CANZUK or other pipe dreams.

[Siderite]

Sad day. His call for raffle tickets was always a familiar sound.

6 users thanked author for this post.

bartonscorpion, Just Iron, Iron-awe, CMC, Northumbiron, billpuntonsghost

[Siderite]

I have listened to this and thought he made it clear the fundraiser was done by “Matt Ellis and the others.” I don’t think Max’s “I contributed to the dossier” nonsense has stuck.

[Siderite]

Yes, it’s strange how people don’t believe a lying con man.

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

..and one final point from me. We were friends,you sent a a character assassination post that was unjustified to a person you hardly knew. Hurt was the result.You reply has always been,” get over it and move on. “ I have ,but you still have the high and mighty stance you were right.Shame.

Constant regurgitation of this matter doesn’t make me think you have got over it.

[Siderite]

“Interesting he saw the same as me the money from Ian not so Sharp was a donation and not a loan.”

lol. You believe anything if it suits. If Dave says so, you trust it, no matter how many times he’s fibbed. I have seen evidence to suggest otherwise.

Aye, got to be thankful that Dave stepped in to give us an extra 6 months to worsen the situation.

[Siderite]

This seems to have stirred Dodgy Dave into a full statement (as seen on Facebook). I got to the self-pitying waffle about sleepless nights and abuse and gave up on the wall of text. Not interested in his self-pity after the way he treated fans and the club.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

Didn’t they invest in a £2 million function room for this kind of thing? Good use of money.

[Siderite]

Tl;dr: My response to BPG was less about debating religion, more about his complaints about you not treating this site like a preaching session. I was questioning the need to do so on a football site where most are by now familiar with such points of view, and the need to treat others like a mission to be preached to.

And to add to the last bit, I wasn’t speaking of not believing in the message of the Bible for Christians. I was meaning what you had said in the bit where you said you agreed. Where I am against closed minded opinions of other beliefs or putting one’s beliefs (no matter what they are) above the impacts on others. When people do that, it leads to issues.

[Siderite]

I am not bemoaning discussing non-footy on a non-footy sub-forum. My point is in response to BPG bemoaning you not preaching the gospel like there is some need to do so. It irks people and achieves nothing, as can be seen to the responses to the preaching. That is why I mentioned it being a football forum. Not because there’s no need to speak non-footy issues, but questioning the need to act like a missionary when this sub-forum should be about debate, and it’s one of those topics that has been done to death, along with climate change and Palestine, so I don’t really see what more can be gleaned from it. BPG’s demand of you to show the Christian message to others seems pointless and I would suggest any preaching of the gospel message should probably be left elsewhere (though I am not calling for censoring), since everyone has heard it and if they haven’t been swayed by now, they are unlikely to in future.

As for the rest, I have said my piece and don’t want to drag it on too far. All I’ll say is that my point was that BPG’s characterisation of morality as being flawed because I see the issues stemming from rigid ideology from religious to political to nationalist, and those taking such beliefs to an extreme. It wasn’t to argue against people having such a position, it probably is impossible to not have one (certainly politically), but rigid thinking leads to people making decisions that harm others for the ‘good of the cause’. So, no, I won’t agree that God is some necessary marker for morality. Many have used the argument of what God deems moral to commit heinous acts of immorality, all because of rigid thinking.

[Siderite]

I don’t think you have evangelised. Blimey, 5 is an early age for that kind of thing. :-O

[Siderite]

I wasn’t aware of this. Thanks for sharing.

[Siderite]

Why does this site need to gospel message spreading? It’s a football site and the points have been laboured by BPG on several occasions to no avail. BPG, JI, IronAge and others have found solace in their beliefs. That’s no issue for me. Yet the treatment of this site as a conversion ground for BPG grates and is unlikely to succeed.

[Siderite]

I’d say that there is an end in sight, given it seems to have ended. :-)

[Siderite]

I’d say Stalin is a representation of the issue I oppose. A rigid dogmatist. My own stance is to dislike any form of rigid ideology that forces itself upon others, be it religious fundamentalism or communism, so my own thoughts on Stalin is that I disagree with his moral stance as I do the religious when they try to justify things I disagree with. While I am sure Christianity has had some influence on my thoughts, since I am from a country with a large cultural Christian past, I would say that my ideas have formed from other things too. So I wouldn’t say that God is a necessary basis for morals to make sense.

[Siderite]

People who believe in God have said they should kill Jews, as they did in the Crusades, because God wills it and they justify it as good as a result of such beliefs.

Also, the people who said we should kill 6 million Jews don’t represent all atheists, do they? Many also had weird occultist beliefs. The world isn’t a binary. Dogmatism should be opposed, no matter its stripe, as I have said.

[Siderite]

That’s reliant on Southgate starting him, which is not a given.

1 user thanked author for this post.

BigLeftToe

[Siderite]

Moral systems predate Christianity and some of them don’t come from Christianity. It doesn’t need a god to know how stealing or destroying someone’s stuff can be wrong because it hurts others.

[Siderite]

Given such ‘destruction’ causes observable misery to others I’d say that’s evidence for it being something which can be deemed immoral. It usually takes ideological dogmatism to portray such actions that cause harm, because it’s for the good of’God’, the ‘people’ or whoever they claim to stand for.

[Siderite]

The problem I have with BPG’s argument about needing a god as moral arbiter is that it leaves humans justifying actions that harm others because ‘God says it’s right’. This is what allowed Christian zealots of the past to wage war and commit massacres through history. The retort is usually that these weren’t or aren’t true Christians, but these ‘not true Christians’ would say the same about those rejecting their methods, citing scripture to justify actions that harm others. A humanist perspective of basing moral decisions on the foundations of ‘the golden rule’, involving basing decisions on empathy, treating others how you would want to be treated, and realising such moral decisions can lead to advantageous outcomes for a peaceful life for yourself and everyone else can also form a moral bedrock. I don’t think such thinking is precluded from being a Christian; I would say that Christians who developed such positive morals in Christianity were (maybe unknowingly) dipping into such thought when ascribing them to God.

JI is right in pointing out to Gurny that moral issues exist outside of religion. Sometimes atheists can argue as if that without religion we’d have a moral utopia without irrationality. Yet, without religion, many still turn to nonsense pseudoscience and conspiracy theories like the idea that ancient aliens developed human society or that there is a Zionist occupation government that aims to control population numbers and dilute the blood of white people through immigration and mixed race marriages. These things do not necessarily require belief in God or religious belief. Also, there are other extreme ideologies that have caused misery through warfare and atrocities, such as fascism, Nazism and communism. The problem for me is dogmatism, which does include thinking along the lines of using morality as a means of being driven by God, but is not limited to that. Arguments from “God desires others to be treated lesser because they are of heretic or heathen beliefs” to “we need to root out the bourgeoisie and make them pay for causing the suffering of the workers” are both dogmatic ways of thinking that dehumanises others and causes oppression and suffering. Gurny’s posts neglect the need to be sceptical of ideology outside of religion and BPG does the opposite.

I would also say that BPG misunderstands the mindset of the zealot who justifies the deaths of others. The Nazis committed the Holocaust because they thought it was moral and they were doing humanity a favour by ridding the world of those who cause it harm. It doesn’t come about because of the lack of Christian belief, but because they are applying a similar dogmatic mindset to another ideology. A large part of the problem comes with moral certainties without due care for others and justifications based on ideology. Such ideological certainties can convince many that something which harms others is not such a big deal, because it suits those they care for, be it God, their favoured ‘race’ or the workers.

Of course there are more complexities in that some ideologies are worse than others, because their teachings have less going for them. Nazism is worse than Christianity, because the latter can provide teachings that can be positive while the former doesn’t, but both can encourage dogmatism and dogmatic/fundamentalist adherents to both would be convinced they are doing the right thing for humanity.

Tl;dr, for these reasons I do not have much time for arguments about morality being based around God, because that can be used to justify immoral behaviour which can be passed on, because God says it’s right. I would say that the good aspects of Christianity (yes, Gurny, I do think they exist) come from the human philosophy of seeing how you want to be treated and treating others the same with empathic thoughts. This basis can form moral systems that have developed globally and among many backgrounds, religions and non-religions. The only difference is that Christians link such morals to being guided or instilled by God. I have no issue with that, so long as they don’t start making comments about how without their religion there would be no moral framework or basis.

[Siderite]

Fortunately, these specific brand of fundies don’t have the same sway as Islamic theocratic movements in many Islamic countries, but the Christian right as a whole are a force in the Republican party.

[Siderite]

The web page could admittedly be clearer in specifying the number in the squad, but I see no reason to assume it’s anything but a normal 11-11 with subs. As 5 of the supporters, maximum, can be bought, that gives around 11 squad places (assuming 5 subs) to raffle winners, if it is 11-11. I certainly don’t think the club would advertise a raffle for something where all spaces could be just bought out for some 5 a side game.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Awaywego

[Author]

Posts