No quite. But if he believes Jews should be gassed then you could say the exact same thing.
His views have no place in a civilised society. Fuck Gueye (hilarious name for someone with his god awful views btw )
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
His views have no place in a civilised society. Fuck Gueye (hilarious name for someone with his god awful views btw )
Deleted member 15314
Guest
I think that we should be free express ourselves even if the views are not very common or popular, but over the last few decades we've completely lost sight of what's sensible or good for society.
We tolerate intolerance in the name of fairness and equality, when in practice those people just gain power and then make life hell for the rest of us (or a minority). The west's relations with Islam is perfect example of it.
So yeah, fuck gueye.
You could be french
I also think there is a reticence sometimes to call out Islam (and other groups) for having cultural problems. The fear I think is that you are labelling every member of that group as having a problem but that is not true and we should be clear about that.
Eg. Republicans have a cultural problem around gun control.
My work has a cultural problem around organisation.
Muslim communities (in places) have tolerated violent extremism.
These are all true of certain pockets but it doesn’t imply that all republicans or every person at my work or every Muslim in those places has that problem. That’s because culture is participates in and not everyone in a group participated in every aspect of that culture. I don’t eat snails every day and you don’t have tea and scones every day.
Deleted member 15314
Guest
If I could be like that handsome devil, I'd happily munch on a few snails.You could be french
I also think there is a reticence sometimes to call out Islam (and other groups) for having cultural problems. The fear I think is that you are labelling every member of that group as having a problem but that is not true and we should be clear about that.
Eg. Republicans have a cultural problem around gun control.
My work has a cultural problem around organisation.
Muslim communities (in places) have tolerated violent extremism.
These are all true of certain pockets but it doesn’t imply that all republicans or every person at my work or every Muslim in those places has that problem. That’s because culture is participates in and not everyone in a group participated in every aspect of that culture. I don’t eat snails every day and you don’t have tea and scones every day.
I my experience (as you can probably see in this thread) the lefty defenders of Islam are the ones who seem to lose their heads about "labelling all muslims as evil", when I've never done anything of the sort.
It should go without saying that large groups are diverse and disagree on a lot of stuff. I also made your point about culture and religion being interconnected, but by that point they couldn't hear through the ringing in their ears.
There are many dynamics at play but the people who instinctively get defensive about Islam don't want to discuss the specifics. They think any inspection deeper than "some people good, some people bad" is inherently motivated by bias.
In the meantime, the victims of Islam, which are mainly muslims and those close to them find that not only are they oppressed by Islam/muslims but also "liberal" lefties who choose to protect the muslims. It's like those Russians telling their Ukrainian family in Kharkiv that they're being lied to by Zelensky.
That logic is a bit fallacious, don't you think?
Believing that Jews should be gassed - whilst not a call for violence- it is certainly a moral justification for it.
Where as if Gueye - who has been silent thus far so we don't really know what he believes - comes out and says he finds homosexual relationships to be immoral but he treats all peoples the same, he simply expressing a personal moral position. He is not inciting anything, nor expressing hatred.
Your quite mad.If I could be like that handsome devil, I'd happily munch on a few snails.
I my experience (as you can probably see in this thread) the lefty defenders of Islam are the ones who seem to lose their heads about "labelling all muslims as evil", when I've never done anything of the sort.
It should go without saying that large groups are diverse and disagree on a lot of stuff. I also made your point about culture and religion being interconnected, but by that point they couldn't hear through the ringing in their ears.
There are many dynamics at play but the people who instinctively get defensive about Islam don't want to discuss the specifics. They think any inspection deeper than "some people good, some people bad" is inherently motivated by bias.
In the meantime, the victims of Islam, which are mainly muslims and those close to them find that not only are they oppressed by Islam/muslims but also "liberal" lefties who choose to protect the muslims. It's like those Russians telling their Ukrainian family in Kharkiv that they're being lied to by Zelensky.
What about the Jedi's - I've not heard their view on this?
Are the flat earthers a religion?
There would be a similar if not identical fuss. You don't recall Tyson Fury.... who I suspect would get along famously with Gueye He's fully rehabilitated by the wayImagine this was a white, christian player
hmmm yes I see your point.
I was responding to the claim that whilst the belief is wrong, it’s not anyone else’s place to tell them to change that belief.
I think that this is false and that is how we approach many radical beliefs. Combating radicalism has been a big part of the past 20 years and has been focused principally on Islamic extremism but also the far right. I support that.
I don’t see how a belief that homosexuals are not worthy of equal treatment is sustainable in a modern western country. It is deplorable.
In France this extremism has been fought by making it harder for Muslims to educate their children separately and starting school earlier. The values of the republic are important and cannot be compromised. I know some will think that impinges on freedom of conscience but I don’t believe we should be able to hold irrational, discriminatory views without some serious pushback. It is not at all reasonable to be homophobic.
Warning who about what?
I only see one dumb fuck on here.
We do know what he believes through his actions.
The rainbow colours simply mean that the LGBT+ community should have equal rights.
It is not a demand, or even a suggestion that people change sex or have intercourse with people of the same sex or gender.
By refusing to wear the colours he is implicitly stating that LGBT+ people are not entitled to the same rights as straight people.
Your point about beliefs being wrong and the need for them to be combated is interesting. I'm all for dialogue and someone trying to intellectually prove their point.
However it seems you are saying we need to go beyond that for certain beliefs. So who decides which beliefs are so heinous that they need to be punished in some way? Does the State decide that? If so, how does the state decide what is objectively morally good or bad? And what's to stop the state abusing that power to shut off any ideas it deems as a threat to itself?
If its not a state-led pushback, then what do you suggest? Some sort of social pushback against nonconforming views?
If as I stated Gueyes position is simply that he finds homosexual relationships to be morally wrong in his personal life and that he treats everyone equally- I regard the above (your comments) to be the extremist position. If that's not what you were saying, I take that back obviously.
People can call homosexual relationships immoral, they can call alcoholism immoral, they can call Islam immoral, they can Piers Morgans left testicle immoral- I don't think it's the job of the state to enforce personal moral views.
Also I regard France''s muscular secularism to be much harsher than the UK's approach. France is a country where women have had to fight in court to not have certain items of clothing removed from their bodies- whether its a hijab or a burkini. Is that not intolerance in the service of secularism?
Having lived across many places in the world, I think the UK has a a much better balance of tolerating a genuine difference of opinion whilst curbing ideas that call for violence.
I wasted so many words when you ended this with such brevity.
As far as I know all that happened so far is that he missed a game. And then remained silent. So considering that, I don't think we can make a deep dive into his personal opinions just yet.
I do think however that you are probably right and the rainbow flag is probably the reason he missed the game. Judging by the reaction from those for and against him - I don't know what else it can be.
What we can't do however is put words in his mouth - which you have done. You said the only reason he would have refused to wear the shirt was because he doesn't want gay people to have equal rights. That's just your interpretation. If he comes out and says he believes everyone is equal in the eyes of the law but he views the symbol to be a moral one, and not a legal one and he doesn't want to be associated with it, he is not denying people's rights. Its a fine line but it makes all the difference.
There have been sportstars who have refused to wear jerseys that have alcohol promoted on them. I don't think anyone would accuse them of being against equal rights for alcoholics. Its always viewed in the light of their individual moral position.
And before anyone starts, no one is comparing an alcohol drinker to someone from the lgbt community. I'm simply making the point that all this could be a wish to not be associated with something they don't agree with morally.
Of course all of that could be wrong and Gueye might come out and say he hates gay people and wants them to be denied their rights in France. But until that moment I don't think we can accuse him of bigotry or wanting to kill people's rights just yet.
Forgive me, but that all sounds like "I'm not homophobic but........" (Not aimed at you btw).
If anybody thinks homosexuals are immoral then that makes them homophobic.
It really is that simple.
Oh there are plenty more then that!
You frame « the state » as being this oppressive force which imposes on the people. That view is not, in my view, the best fit for how democracies work. In a democracy the government should act in the interests of the people and at the people’s pleasure.
So the answer to who gets to decide is « we the people ». And the government should act rationally and in the interests of the people. That is consistent with how western democracies are in fact set up (including legal principals like judicial review). Drawing lines in the sand is the whole shitting point of legislatures and laws.
The U.K., which you speak of admiringly, has hate speech laws and protected characteristics. It absolutely draws a line in the sand and it does so for characteristics that people cannot help or choose (race, gender, sexuality and disability). The U.K. is absolutely right to do those things because there is NO good reason to discriminate on those grounds. It is categorically NOT the case that someone else’s view that people of a certain race, gender or sexuality are inferior is equally valid to my view that they are morally irrelevant.
Conservatives and libertarians often post the question of who decides like it’s a gotcha but the answer is so simple. They also tend to want to drag these arguments into a « well what is truth anyway » space. But I believe in the enlightenment and I’m happy to provide some moral truths and not get stuck in this silly relativistic space.
At its core there is NO good reason to discriminate or believe that people are inferior because of natural characteristics - these views must be fought because idle prejudice is harmful.
There’s much more that I could say but this is long enough. I’ll just say that if Gueye finds homosexuality to be wrong then thé corollary is that he denies that homophobia should be fought. That is not ok. That belief is founded on hatred. However if he treats everyone as equal then that is fine and I would have thought EXACTLY the point of the campaign - so it’s curious that he is not willing to promote equal treatment for homosexuals.
You are talking absolute bollocks. Islamism is the ideology, Islam is a religion. Islamists are extremist by nature, Muslims aren't.
Islamism is a political ideology which posits that modern states and regions should be reconstituted in constitutional, economic and judicial terms, in accordance with what is conceived as a revival or a return to authentic Islamic practice in its totality.
Love from a Muslim. Xxx