Dave Whelan

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lff said:
Lets close this thread please.
Click to expand...

I don't see why this thread being open is doing any harm, and the conversation has been on-topic since the beginning. It was always going to be about the pros (or lack thereof) and cons of Thatcher's tenure, and how the average football fan is likely to view her today. It's all relevant.

Also I can't say I've noticed any sexism.
 
Thank goodness the Pope is an Argentinian otherwise all the Thatcher lovers would be seeking a Sainthood for her.

Our manager is also an Argentinian and I am not sure he would want to pay any respects to Maggie in a minutes silence or in any other way.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
I don't see why this thread being open is doing any harm, and the conversation has been on-topic since the beginning. It was always going to be about the pros (or lack thereof) and cons of Thatcher's tenure, and how the average football fan is likely to view her today. It's all relevant.

Also I can't say I've noticed any sexism.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I cannot find any relevance to football in this thread. These sort of debates are so pointless. We all have our opinions. No-one is going to suddenly see the light.

The thread was about the minutes' silence not about the pros and cons of Thatcher. This thread is just enabling one or two strongly opinionated people to sound clever.

And now Godders is bringing in religion and Argentinian nonsense into it.
 
To quote from that piece I posted a link to earlier - "It is the most bovine sort of me-tooism, this idea that football's blazers must institute policies and protocols for dealing with notable deaths, as though they were key players in events vastly bigger than themselves."

That to me is precisely why there shouldn't be a minutes silence for MT or, to be honest, any other non-footballing death.
 
A lot is made of Thatcher`s achievements - I would contend that another encumbent could have done better, and without alienating whole sectors of society, both nationally and internationally. We`ll never know of course.
 
Le Tissier's Laces said:
To quote from that piece I posted a link to earlier - "It is the most bovine sort of me-tooism, this idea that football's blazers must institute policies and protocols for dealing with notable deaths, as though they were key players in events vastly bigger than themselves."

That to me is precisely why there shouldn't be a minutes silence for MT or, to be honest, any other non-footballing death.
Click to expand...

Or, quite a lot of the actual football-related one's actually. I mean, where do you draw the line?
 
I certainly won't be silent during any "tribute" to her.

I find the older I get, the more left wing I'm getting... which seems a complete polar opposite to many mates and especially my father.
 
OK, there have been some requests to close this thread, and in the interests of debate my opinion has been to leave it open but... please stay on the topic..!

Is it right for there to be a period of silence, for the memory of Mrs Thatcher, prior to the start of football matches held over this weekend, yes or no..?
 
Lff said:
I'm sorry, but I cannot find any relevance to football in this thread. These sort of debates are so pointless. We all have our opinions. No-one is going to suddenly see the light.

The thread was about the minutes' silence not about the pros and cons of Thatcher. This thread is just enabling one or two strongly opinionated people to sound clever.

And now Godders is bringing in religion and Argentinian nonsense into it.
Click to expand...

We're football fans. There's a good chance that the opinions on here would reflect the opinions of those in the stadiums up and down the country, therefore it is all relevant. Considering most people who have posted on this thread have had some sort of problem with Thatcher, that probably shows that a minute's silence for her would not be respected.

As for being strongly opinionated, I will never understand how people always make that out to be a bad thing. The opposite is ignorance.
 
TheSecondStain said:
OK, there have been some requests to close this thread, and in the interests of debate my opinion has been to leave it open but... please stay on the topic..!

Is it right for there to be a period of silence, for the memory of Mrs Thatcher, prior to the start of football matches held over this weekend, yes or no..?
Click to expand...

No! But this has nothing to do with my opinion of Thatcher.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
As for being strongly opinionated, I will never understand how people always make that out to be a bad thing. The opposite is ignorance.
Click to expand...

That is simply not the case. Some of the world's most ignorant people happen to be the most opinionated. Have you actually read your own signature? To hold a strong, unchallengeable view about anything means that you consciously or unconsciously deny other views without giving them proper consideration.
 
Lff said:
That is simply not the case. Some of the world's most ignorant people happen to be the most opinionated. Have you actually read your own signature? To hold a strong, unchallengeable view about anything means that you consciously or unconsciously deny other views without giving them proper consideration.
Click to expand...

Maybe we mean different things when we say "strongly opinionated". To me it doesn't mean a refusal to consider contradictory views, it just means an opinion which is strongly grounded in knowledge of relevant facts.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
Maybe we mean different things when we say "strongly opinionated". To me it doesn't mean a refusal to consider contradictory views, it just means an opinion which is strongly grounded in knowledge of relevant facts.
Click to expand...

But herein lies the problem. The facts remain the same and yet two opinions can be diametrically opposed. So any such argument boils down to, "I'm right. because I am."

I have a friend who is a Jehovah's Witness. I say to him, how come you are right when other people hold different opinions. His answer is, "But I KNOW I am". Which, by the way, is why I know I'll never change your opinion even though I know I'm right, and you'll never get me to change my mind even though you know that you are right.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
Maybe we mean different things when we say "strongly opinionated". To me it doesn't mean a refusal to consider contradictory views, it just means an opinion which is strongly grounded in knowledge of relevant facts.
Click to expand...
Lff said:
But herein lies the problem. The facts remain the same and yet two opinions can be diametrically opposed. So any such argument boils down to, "I'm right. because I am." I have a friend who is a Jehovah's Witness. I say to him, how come you are right when other people hold different opinions. His answer is, "But I KNOW I am". Which, by the way, is why I know I'll never change your opinion even though I know I'm right, and you'll never get me to change my mind even though you know that you are right.
Click to expand...
I think you two ought to agree to differ [on the topic you've managed to stray off] on this one.

Someone intelligent once said [I forget who] of debate... in order to be understood, first you must understand [the opposing view].

EDIT: I think this one has run it's course. Perhaps a Poll next time for this sort of fringe question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back