I have (maybe not why, but certainly info on those views)
It’s useful to understand bigotry when learning how to be more inclusive.
Eight per cent of fans ‘wouldn’t watch team containing gay player’
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
It’s useful to understand bigotry when learning how to be more inclusive.
We should change the post title to 92% of fans won't watch a team McCann is manager of.
These are absolutely not the words I used and you are a master at twisting words to change the subject. 'What about this bollocks I'm bringing up to avoid your answer, which answers my question'
Actions, which come from thoughts, can impact people's lives and you well know that. I'll defend someone not liking gay people. That's fine and your right. What I will never defend is 'I don't like gay people, so you can't have this in your life'. That is when it becomes unacceptable.
And yes, sure, I'll go on a course about how gay people are persecuted. I do know that however, so I'm not entirely sure what I'll gain.
I wasn't talking about MY opinion. I was talking about practically anybody's opinion.
I would think people would think the courses were a waste of time if they only stated the obvious. Should we have courses that explained only the homosexual (is that still an offensive/childish word here?) lifestyle or should we also explain the heterosexual lifestyle and the pansexual lifestyle? After all it would be difficult to educate people without giving context to the differences.
I’m afraid you’re not right this time Drew.
Peter is not a master at twisting words.
He simply wants to convince himself that his uncomfortable feelings about homosexuality are normal and that nothing could be said to him that would change his ‘normal’ opinions, so wants to attack the notion that increased awareness is useful for anyone, because that would make him feel better.
He’s no master at this, he’s transparent.
Of course awareness sessions should include more than homosexuality.
But you know that
And you know no one suggested that
Can you clear up my confusion?
Are you against actions which impact people's lives? I will assume from the above that you are.
Are you also against thoughts because they COULD lead to actions that could impact people's lives?
Or are you only against thoughts if they do lead to actions that could impact people's lives?
If you are only against thoughts if they do lead to actions then you are not really against thoughts per se. This was the point I was making.
If you are against thoughts because they COULD lead to actions then you cannot be for diversity of thought.
I am against thoughts which then lead to actions, rather than isolated thoughts without actions.
I think the first part of any course should be:
"An ad hominem argument"
An ad hominem argument is often a personal attack on someone's character or motive rather than an attempt to address the actual issue at hand because they are losing the argument.
That's why I talked about diversity of thought. I am in favour of diversity of thought.
So is there no part of you that thinks exposing more people to more diversity of thought than they are used to would be beneficial?
You seemed to struggle when asked what should be on these courses. You thought other people should decide. Now you seem to claiming to have more idea what should be on these courses.
What is the diversity of thought that you claim to know they are not used to?
Do you think you should be made to go on courses led by people who think they have different thoughts to you? Or is it just a one way thing?
OK. I'm done. Either you are being purposefully obtuse, you are not listening, or you aren't willing to listen to your own arguments.
For the avoidance of doubt and to finish my part in this horrifically circular debate, I'm saying it is beneficial for most people to learn how different people live different lives. I've been on courses, I benefitted.
In this case, yes, I absolutely believe the footballer when he says people who work in football could benefit from learning more about LGBT issues. They could probably learn about other issues too.
It is up to them how they use this information. I hope it would foster a better world.
I have nothing more I would like to add.
Are you sure you believe in diversity of thought?
Rather than answer the questions I ask you just attack me.
I have thought things through. I have discussed them with you.
At no time have I attacked you.
Why do you keep asking 637,839 questions?
Well keep diversifying your thinking on what the reason would be not to run awareness sessions on LGBT+ issues at a football club that one of the members of that club feels would be useful to enable them to be more open about their sexuality, and are run at many other organisations, in a sector that is likely to have a higher than average number of employees that feel unable to be open about their sexuality.
Then explain your reasons...without using a question mark
To some up:
Some people think that if people were told what to think (or call it "educated") then the world will be a better place.
Other people think that if people think for themselves the world will be a better place. That does include looking for information, discussions and reading. It shouldn't be achieved by "approved educators" passing on "approved opinions". To all those who say "I never said that". Exactly, they don't want to admit it. During these "discussions" some people will get angry because you don't agree with them. Getting angry is a sign of weakness of thought.
Some people think that if people were told what to think (or call it "educated") then the world will be a better place.
Other people think that if people think for themselves the world will be a better place. That does include looking for information, discussions and reading. It shouldn't be achieved by "approved educators" passing on "approved opinions". To all those who say "I never said that". Exactly, they don't want to admit it. During these "discussions" some people will get angry because you don't agree with them. Getting angry is a sign of weakness of thought.
- Status