Chicken (on a Basketball) ©™ (U1043)
Are you sure it was '10 times'?
Evra had claimed it was 5, then he settled on 7. He also claimed he was called something a lot worse, then retracted it after realising he couldn't prove it.
Lets go with what we know shall we. Suarez admitted to saying 'por que negro', or 'why black' in Spanish. Other claims by Evra were taken on face value, or Suarez 'probably' saying it. There was no clear proof, video evidence, or other witness testimony to back this up.
So based on that we know for definite that Suarez said 'por que negro' ONCE. In your opinion does saying 'why black' once make you a racist?
You weren't arguing whether what was said was racist yesterday. You were arguing that Suarez was 'a racist' because of what he said. Now you've been shown that to be 'a racist' you have to believe what you say, you're changing tack.
red_man23,
Why would anyone say "Why black?" to a person of black origen, other than to mean it in a racist way? I mix with all races, but not once have i referred to them by their colour (race).
Neither have i ever been in the company of someone who would use this type of language, and neither would it be accepted in any of the circles i mix in. Maybe you do - that i dont know. Although that would explain why you're defending it.
And i'm not sure how consitently saying the same thing over & over is "changing tack".
Chicken
Yes you are right, why would you say why black if you were having a conversation in English. But they weren't, they were having a conversation in Spanish. Either way, would you say calling someone, who is black, black is racist?
Evra apparently referred to Suarez as South American, Suarez replied with 'por que negro'. Now bear in mind racism extends to ethnicity as well as race.
"And i'm not sure how consitently saying the same thing over & over is "changing tack"."
Right lets clear this up straight away shall we. Yesterday you were saying that Suarez saying something once made him 'A RACIST'. We defined what being 'A RACIST' was. We claimed there is a difference between using a racist term once and being 'A RACIST'.
Today you're saying that what Suarez said is racist, as highlighted in the sentence below;
"But thats the whole point, Suarez didnt just abuse a black man, he didnt abuse him for wearing odd socks, he abused him in a racial manner - which makes IT RACIST."
You've gone from saying Suarez is A RACIST (because of what he said), to saying what Suarez said IS RACIST.
That is what I mean by changing tack.
red_man23
Dont insult my (& your) intelligence by palming it off as a "language" issue.
No other spanish speaking player has ever been accused of calling a player of black origin "black" so why would Suarez think it was "the norm".
When KD talks to Suarez, doe she reply "Okay white man"? Of course he doesn't.
You're clutching - and you know it.
Chicken
Who claimed it was 'the norm'?
It was an exceptional conversation that took place. In no way was what happened normal from both parties perspectives. Unless your claiming it's normal for Partice Evra to walk around being that antagonistic, and calling people South American, or whatever ethnicity is relevant.
Evra called Suarez South American, Suarez called Evra black.
It wasn't a 'language issue' yet linguistic experts were required during the hearing to clarify the language differences involved in the case. If only it was as clear cut as you make out, all that time and expense could have been saved.
I take it you are also aware of no one ever being referred to by skin colour, amongst Spanish speaking countries?
You're putting an English language context onto a conversation that took place in Spanish.
I always feel, when having a debate, that when clichéd phrases such as 'clutching at straws' come out it's time to give up. There's not a lot, in the terms of a decent counter argument, coming back. It's only a matter of time before phrases such as 'I owned you', 'you're being shown up', 'you're losing' etc start being used.
red_man23
I dont think "you're clutching" is like any of them other playground phrases you mention. And if you care to look back on this article, i think you'll find quite a lot of pathetic childish insults aimed at me, with no retaliation coming from my side.
On that note, when these insults were being thrown at me, i didnt notice you showing the same hatred of such posting. But i assume thats okay, as they are fellow Liverpool fans, right?
Its fine to play the moralistic card, but to pull it off you have to be consistent.
Chicken
This is a conversation happening between me and you, here and now. How am I in any way responsible for what others have said to you in the past. It's up to you to address the people insulting you, as it's a conversation happening between yourself and them.
When you claimed Suarez had abused Evra '10 times' I countered that opinion. Even when you put up a link for the Guardian I mentioned Evra had claimed it was 5, then 10, then 7.
You went quiet on this point and moved on.
Then there was you changing tack. The Suarez is 'a racist' and what Suarez said 'is racist'. I pointed that out to you and guess what?
You went quiet and moved on.
Then we had me 'palming it off as a "language" issue'. I countered that argument and what happened? Go on take a guess.
You went quiet and moved on.
Now we've got you coining the cliché 'clutching at straws'
It's one of the phrases used when no counter argument can be produced, and is usually followed by the playground phrases I mentioned.
Oh and to 'play the moralistic card' I have to adhere to and maintain my own set of morals. Not regulate the morals of others .
jenners (U10869)
posted 20 hours, 35 minutes ago
If you saw a man in a Liverpool shirt mugging an old lady you'd gormlessly help them out because they "must be in the right".
------------------------
What a stupid bloody comment!!
------------------------------
I do hope you are not referring to this comment Chicken, as it was you insulting Liverpool fans and generalising them all the same, my comment was fair and straight to the point, it was a stupid thing to say, end of!
'But thats the whole point, Suarez didnt just abuse a black man, he didnt abuse him for wearing odd socks, he abused him in a racial manner - which makes it racist.'
Sorry - that one was covered in my list:
"If you call a black man a n***** for spilling your drink you are offensive (or playing for your opponent) and using racist language but NOT a racist!"
The mistake you made was you didn't finished your own sentence - you are so close to getting this simple concept!:
'he didnt abuse him for wearing odd socks.......[he abused him FOR playing for Man united]....., he abused him IN a racial manner.'
There we go - completed it for you Do you see? The manner was racist, the INTENT was not - therefore he is NOT a racist, he used racist LANGUAGE!!!
Go back to the sexism example - you can insult someone in a sexist manor (call them a sl*g for spilling your pint) but that is not the same as being a sexist (calling them a sl*g for being a woman!).
Please for the love of St Paddy, you must be able to see this, please!!! You are so exasperating!!!
jenners,
I do hope you are not referring to this comment Chicken, as it was you insulting Liverpool fans and generalising them all the same, my comment was fair and straight to the point, it was a stupid thing to say, end of!
==================
Why was it generalising Liverpool fans, when it was addressed to one individual?
Your comment here actually shows YOU to be the one who's generalising, as you seem to think it was aimed at everyone.
red_man23,
I suggest you read the article again, because i never "went quiet" on any of them convesrations. It may have been a case of not wanting to repeat myself for 20th or 25th time, but i haven't avoided any of the points you mention.
If you want me to repeat it i will.
Suarez racially abused Evra more than once (probably anything up to 10 times), Suarez got banned for racist language, which is racism & racial abuse (there you go, all tthe race words all in one sentence, that should cover everything for now).
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I've tried to agree to disagree but it just seems to keep going...
Right, can we all agree to disagree once & for all?
..or
I think we can all safely agree that you are wrong And by all I mean you as well - why else would you completely ignore me
CutMeAndIBleedRed,
I would never ignore you.
chicken,
this was done and dusted!
you brought it back up!!
trying to play the bloody victim card, when you was in the wrong, and you are still arguing
To be fair Chicken, you do drag things out. You're as bad as TheresOnlyOneReds
I have decided i win this argument
Jenners,
I didnt bring it back up, i simply put you straight, as you falsely accused me generalising Liverpool fans, when i had done no such thing.
Mr Chelsea,
I wouldnt say i drag things out, i'm just extremely stubborn when i know i'm in the right.
Oi - stop poking Chicken with a stick - I've got him to admit he was wrong by virtue of his lack of response!
Im stubborn too Chicken. Like you wouldnt believe..
I'm not stubborn for the sake of it though. As i say, only when i know i'm in the right...
I am going to have the last word on this thread if it kills me
Sign in if you want to comment
Diving
Page 11 of 12
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
posted on 17/3/12
Chicken (on a Basketball) ©™ (U1043)
Are you sure it was '10 times'?
Evra had claimed it was 5, then he settled on 7. He also claimed he was called something a lot worse, then retracted it after realising he couldn't prove it.
Lets go with what we know shall we. Suarez admitted to saying 'por que negro', or 'why black' in Spanish. Other claims by Evra were taken on face value, or Suarez 'probably' saying it. There was no clear proof, video evidence, or other witness testimony to back this up.
So based on that we know for definite that Suarez said 'por que negro' ONCE. In your opinion does saying 'why black' once make you a racist?
You weren't arguing whether what was said was racist yesterday. You were arguing that Suarez was 'a racist' because of what he said. Now you've been shown that to be 'a racist' you have to believe what you say, you're changing tack.
posted on 17/3/12
red_man23,
Why would anyone say "Why black?" to a person of black origen, other than to mean it in a racist way? I mix with all races, but not once have i referred to them by their colour (race).
Neither have i ever been in the company of someone who would use this type of language, and neither would it be accepted in any of the circles i mix in. Maybe you do - that i dont know. Although that would explain why you're defending it.
And i'm not sure how consitently saying the same thing over & over is "changing tack".
posted on 17/3/12
Chicken
Yes you are right, why would you say why black if you were having a conversation in English. But they weren't, they were having a conversation in Spanish. Either way, would you say calling someone, who is black, black is racist?
Evra apparently referred to Suarez as South American, Suarez replied with 'por que negro'. Now bear in mind racism extends to ethnicity as well as race.
"And i'm not sure how consitently saying the same thing over & over is "changing tack"."
Right lets clear this up straight away shall we. Yesterday you were saying that Suarez saying something once made him 'A RACIST'. We defined what being 'A RACIST' was. We claimed there is a difference between using a racist term once and being 'A RACIST'.
Today you're saying that what Suarez said is racist, as highlighted in the sentence below;
"But thats the whole point, Suarez didnt just abuse a black man, he didnt abuse him for wearing odd socks, he abused him in a racial manner - which makes IT RACIST."
You've gone from saying Suarez is A RACIST (because of what he said), to saying what Suarez said IS RACIST.
That is what I mean by changing tack.
posted on 17/3/12
red_man23
Dont insult my (& your) intelligence by palming it off as a "language" issue.
No other spanish speaking player has ever been accused of calling a player of black origin "black" so why would Suarez think it was "the norm".
When KD talks to Suarez, doe she reply "Okay white man"? Of course he doesn't.
You're clutching - and you know it.
posted on 17/3/12
Chicken
Who claimed it was 'the norm'?
It was an exceptional conversation that took place. In no way was what happened normal from both parties perspectives. Unless your claiming it's normal for Partice Evra to walk around being that antagonistic, and calling people South American, or whatever ethnicity is relevant.
Evra called Suarez South American, Suarez called Evra black.
It wasn't a 'language issue' yet linguistic experts were required during the hearing to clarify the language differences involved in the case. If only it was as clear cut as you make out, all that time and expense could have been saved.
I take it you are also aware of no one ever being referred to by skin colour, amongst Spanish speaking countries?
You're putting an English language context onto a conversation that took place in Spanish.
I always feel, when having a debate, that when clichéd phrases such as 'clutching at straws' come out it's time to give up. There's not a lot, in the terms of a decent counter argument, coming back. It's only a matter of time before phrases such as 'I owned you', 'you're being shown up', 'you're losing' etc start being used.
posted on 17/3/12
red_man23
I dont think "you're clutching" is like any of them other playground phrases you mention. And if you care to look back on this article, i think you'll find quite a lot of pathetic childish insults aimed at me, with no retaliation coming from my side.
On that note, when these insults were being thrown at me, i didnt notice you showing the same hatred of such posting. But i assume thats okay, as they are fellow Liverpool fans, right?
Its fine to play the moralistic card, but to pull it off you have to be consistent.
posted on 17/3/12
Chicken
This is a conversation happening between me and you, here and now. How am I in any way responsible for what others have said to you in the past. It's up to you to address the people insulting you, as it's a conversation happening between yourself and them.
When you claimed Suarez had abused Evra '10 times' I countered that opinion. Even when you put up a link for the Guardian I mentioned Evra had claimed it was 5, then 10, then 7.
You went quiet on this point and moved on.
Then there was you changing tack. The Suarez is 'a racist' and what Suarez said 'is racist'. I pointed that out to you and guess what?
You went quiet and moved on.
Then we had me 'palming it off as a "language" issue'. I countered that argument and what happened? Go on take a guess.
You went quiet and moved on.
Now we've got you coining the cliché 'clutching at straws'
It's one of the phrases used when no counter argument can be produced, and is usually followed by the playground phrases I mentioned.
Oh and to 'play the moralistic card' I have to adhere to and maintain my own set of morals. Not regulate the morals of others .
posted on 17/3/12
jenners (U10869)
posted 20 hours, 35 minutes ago
If you saw a man in a Liverpool shirt mugging an old lady you'd gormlessly help them out because they "must be in the right".
------------------------
What a stupid bloody comment!!
------------------------------
I do hope you are not referring to this comment Chicken, as it was you insulting Liverpool fans and generalising them all the same, my comment was fair and straight to the point, it was a stupid thing to say, end of!
posted on 17/3/12
Move along.
Please.
posted on 17/3/12
'But thats the whole point, Suarez didnt just abuse a black man, he didnt abuse him for wearing odd socks, he abused him in a racial manner - which makes it racist.'
Sorry - that one was covered in my list:
"If you call a black man a n***** for spilling your drink you are offensive (or playing for your opponent) and using racist language but NOT a racist!"
The mistake you made was you didn't finished your own sentence - you are so close to getting this simple concept!:
'he didnt abuse him for wearing odd socks.......[he abused him FOR playing for Man united]....., he abused him IN a racial manner.'
There we go - completed it for you Do you see? The manner was racist, the INTENT was not - therefore he is NOT a racist, he used racist LANGUAGE!!!
Go back to the sexism example - you can insult someone in a sexist manor (call them a sl*g for spilling your pint) but that is not the same as being a sexist (calling them a sl*g for being a woman!).
Please for the love of St Paddy, you must be able to see this, please!!! You are so exasperating!!!
posted on 19/3/12
jenners,
I do hope you are not referring to this comment Chicken, as it was you insulting Liverpool fans and generalising them all the same, my comment was fair and straight to the point, it was a stupid thing to say, end of!
==================
Why was it generalising Liverpool fans, when it was addressed to one individual?
Your comment here actually shows YOU to be the one who's generalising, as you seem to think it was aimed at everyone.
red_man23,
I suggest you read the article again, because i never "went quiet" on any of them convesrations. It may have been a case of not wanting to repeat myself for 20th or 25th time, but i haven't avoided any of the points you mention.
If you want me to repeat it i will.
Suarez racially abused Evra more than once (probably anything up to 10 times), Suarez got banned for racist language, which is racism & racial abuse (there you go, all tthe race words all in one sentence, that should cover everything for now).
posted on 19/3/12
posted on 19/3/12
SHUT UP!
posted on 19/3/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/3/12
I've tried to agree to disagree but it just seems to keep going...
Right, can we all agree to disagree once & for all?
..or
posted on 19/3/12
I think we can all safely agree that you are wrong And by all I mean you as well - why else would you completely ignore me
posted on 19/3/12
CutMeAndIBleedRed,
I would never ignore you.
posted on 19/3/12
chicken,
this was done and dusted!
you brought it back up!!
trying to play the bloody victim card, when you was in the wrong, and you are still arguing
posted on 19/3/12
To be fair Chicken, you do drag things out. You're as bad as TheresOnlyOneReds
posted on 19/3/12
I have decided i win this argument
posted on 19/3/12
Jenners,
I didnt bring it back up, i simply put you straight, as you falsely accused me generalising Liverpool fans, when i had done no such thing.
Mr Chelsea,
I wouldnt say i drag things out, i'm just extremely stubborn when i know i'm in the right.
posted on 19/3/12
Oi - stop poking Chicken with a stick - I've got him to admit he was wrong by virtue of his lack of response!
posted on 19/3/12
Im stubborn too Chicken. Like you wouldnt believe..
posted on 19/3/12
I'm not stubborn for the sake of it though. As i say, only when i know i'm in the right...
posted on 19/3/12
I am going to have the last word on this thread if it kills me
Page 11 of 12
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12