owp

Probably time for Murinho to take a job in Saudi Arabia.

No, it’s not easier to prove. The burden of proof is precisely the same. The material point is the combination of the actual reus/the physical act of crime and his intent. If he didn’t intent to kill anyone, then it practically rules out attempted murder.

It’s Pedersen not Pederson. Get it right, people.

Always rated this one but Van Persie’s is outstanding.

This. Close the thread.

So how big a halftime deficit will we have to come back from today? One, two, or three?

Have we turned up yet? /s

3-0 - nightmare lead.

Feck off, you pillock. #S

Cracking discussion and response, I must say. Thank you indeed. Liberalism is indeed unable to remain unreservedly committed to its principles. You make several good points but ultimately the issue comes down to what you see as ‘forced participation in symbolism’ and what ought to be a settled matter: the full and unreserved support for individual’s sexual rights and freedoms. And the refusal to support that isn’t a personal preference to which one is entitled anymore than one is entitled to express antipathy towards, say, antisemitism or anti racism. Some matters are so profoundly settled in a modern democracy that refusal to support them inevitably carries the label of bigotry. And hiding behind religion doesn’t make than any less evident. On the contrary.

Your argument is an unrealistic fallacy resting on the assumption that all preferences and potentially rights are can be expressed in absolute. Which is a non-sequitur insofar as if one’s right to being a bigot is absolute and unrestricted then you’re by definition limiting other people’s rights. Liberal democracies have always tolerated restriction on rights that reflect prevailing values such as e.g. restrictions on free speech by reference to threatening, abusive and racist utterances, and more recently by reference to hate speech. There are dozens of other examples. You don’t have an absolute right to utilise your property as you see fit either. The point is this that in a 21st century liberal democracy, sexual orientation is not something which is ‘up for grabs’ as symbolic values but something fundamental which we’ve decided to protect. Arguably the need for doing so is all the more important in football given its record and history as a place of prejudice.

“Diversity” is not a shield behind which bigots ought to be allowed to hide from social progress when the matter at hand concerns something as fundamental as sexuality.

No, not really. Most religions display some degree homophobia, including Christianity. And it’s at the core of every religion to teach exclusionary reasoning, meaning that adherences to a religious belief inevitably runs into conflict with other norms because the foundation of any religion is the commitment to an exclusive dogma. Kindly note as well that homosexuality is not a ‘lifestyle’ and labelling it as such reveals a retrograde perspective frankly out of place in modern society. Also of this is anchored in religion.

How so?