• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Joe Root: Nothing wrong with being gay

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm surprised nobody raised the fact Gabriel was a minority and Root wasn't. If this happened in America I'm sure someone would mention that
 

Borges

International Regular
Poe's law. I assumed this was a play on words, but your follow up post confused me. Was this intentional?
Yes.
To me, a person is 'awful' only if the actions or words of that person can be perceived as awful; only if that person's influence on the world is actually awful.
Homophobia is itself a product of judging people without evidence; blindly assuming that some people are worse than others, even if one hasn't seen them do anything that is worse.

Always been, and always will be, strongly opposed to thought police.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes.
To me, a person is 'awful' only if the actions or words of that person can be perceived as awful; only if that person's influence on the world is actually awful.
Homophobia is itself a product of judging people without evidence; blindly assuming that some people are worse than others, even if one hasn't seen them do anything that is worse.

Always been, and always will be, strongly opposed to thought police.
would you say there's nothing wrong with a paedophile if they don't hurt anyone, directly or indirectly?
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
would you say there's nothing wrong with a paedophile if they don't hurt anyone, directly or indirectly?
I think there's definitely a big difference between an offending and non offending paedophile. Nobody chooses to be attracted to kids, it's a curse. Once they cross the line and create a victim, it's a problem
 

the big bambino

International Captain
I think there's definitely a big difference between an offending and non offending paedophile. Nobody chooses to be attracted to kids, it's a curse. Once they cross the line and create a victim, it's a problem
Yet I hear they are most intransigent to treatment. Not so much a curse but a belligerent belief they are not evil but the wronged party.
 

Arachnodouche

International Captain
Seems like white players are following the Do Unto Them Before They Do Unto Us What We've Forever Been Doing Unto Them dictum. No law against sodomy in this land until the British came along. Anyway, isn't this the chap who got clocked over mocking Amla's beard not so long ago? #believeDavidWarner
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
The whole issue has nothing to do with thought policing. I said that someone harbouring dire views but not acting on them is still unacceptable, but not that they should be punished for this.

I.e. Is it ok for someone to harbour homophobic or racist preferences or views? No, this is a fundamentally wrong and bad thing to do, and such behaviours should be called out and shamed. Should, however, they be punished by the law for their outlooks if they do not act on them? No, certainly not.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
They were a slur based on ***uality, particularly homosexuality. There is no way they were not homophobic.

That is not to say Gabriel is homophobic, he may well not be. But his words clearly were.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Merve Dillon:

"Why we chastising as if Shannon did something wrong? If that is the comment, I don't see anything wrong with what Shannon said. It was blown out of proportion."

And therein lies the problem.
 

Top