comment by Badgerhands friend of Benteke (U12779)
posted 41 seconds ago
Why don't we all agree to disagree.
All fans other than Liverpool fans agree that Suarez is a bucktoothed Klan member.
Liverpool fans disagree and see him as a fine young man.
----------------------------------------
It's funny but after this one incident, he's a racist but after being part black himself, having a black grandfather, black friends, black teammates, giving money and appearing himself to charties in Africa, the one incident somehow means he's racist against all the other evidence.
Probably a racist though.
Said that yourself
comment by Badgerhands friend of Benteke (U12779)
posted 8 seconds ago
Probably a racist though.
Said that yourself
---------------------------------
No, no I didn't. I said he was found to be probably guilty of racial abuse. I didn't say I think he was or more to the point one racial incident against all else makes somebody a racist or even that racially abusing somebody makes you a racist.
"I said he was found to be probably guilty of racial abuse."
Probably a racist then?
comment by Badgerhands friend of Benteke (U12779)
posted 59 seconds ago
"I said he was found to be probably guilty of racial abuse."
Probably a racist then?
-----------------------------
No. I answered that already.
Do I think he is a racist? Definitely not? Why?
Being part black himself, having a black grandfather, black friends, black teammates, giving money and appearing himself to charties in Africa is enough to convince me.
Do I think one incident against everything else makes him a racist? No.
Do I think racial abuse makes somebody a racist? No.
"But you haven't, instead you've attempted to change the meaning of 'real' and changed 'accepted' to 'dismissed'. "
No - you're just refusing to listen.
A court of law is a court of law.
A civil court is a civil court.
The word 'real' doesn't feature - and you were wrong to use it.
On the actual case itself - your opinion is flawed. I've explained why, but if you need further clarification, do let me know.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
"But you haven't, instead you've attempted to change the meaning of 'real' and changed 'accepted' to 'dismissed'. "
No - you're just refusing to listen.
A court of law is a court of law.
A civil court is a civil court.
The word 'real' doesn't feature - and you were wrong to use it.
On the actual case itself - your opinion is flawed. I've explained why, but if you need further clarification, do let me know.
--------------------
A panel is a panel, a court is a court. It's really simple.
My opinion isn't flawed, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that probably guilty isn't the same as guilty and your refusal to accept this is somewhat mindboggling.
"Do I think racial abuse makes somebody a racist? No."
So he is probably is guilty of racist abuse but because all his friends are black and he bought the "Live Aid" record his possibly not a racist.
Ok, think I've got it.
comment by Badgerhands friend of Benteke (U12779)
posted 1 minute ago
"Do I think racial abuse makes somebody a racist? No."
So he is probably is guilty of racist abuse but because all his friends are black and he bought the "Live Aid" record his possibly not a racist.
Ok, think I've got it.
---------------------
Correct. And if 100% beyond all doubt he was guilty of racial abuse, there would still be overwhelming evidence to suggest he isn't a racist.
Whilst I was referring to a court, as in the building where they practise beyond all reasonable doubt, upon doing a quick search I have found further evidence of the difference.
One is a tribunal(the fa panel) one is a court.
Think that's game set and match. So we can move on from that part at least.
So in short.
There are known, knowns such as Suarez said something racist.
There are unknown knowns, such as he said something racist but once dropped 50p in the water aid charity box so possibly isn't racist but probably said something racist once.
And there are unknown, unkowns. Such as things we don't know that we don't know about Suarez such as he is definatley a racist but possibly not because we don't know what we don't know.
Ok defo got it now.
If that's what you wanna go with, then ok.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Semantics - it's still 'real'.
Your opinion is definitely flawed. You're disagreeing with it because the decision is based on probability - but what else can it be based on?
There's DNA results, are there?
It's a flawed opinion.
If you disagree with the findings then fine - you can pick out parts of the report and tell us what you disagree with... but you haven't done that either.
Think that's game set and match.
Knew you'd come out with that.
Forum bingo - I've just won a line, which basically means that the person I am debating with is a confirmed child.
What sort of person writes 'game, set and match' on a forum?
Dear me.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Semantics - it's still 'real'.
Your opinion is definitely flawed. You're disagreeing with it because the decision is based on probability - but what else can it be based on?
---------------------
Once again, I have not disagreed that he is p[robably guilty. I have only disagreed that probably guilty means guilty. How many times do I have to say this to make you understand? You are capable of taking this information in aren't you? Shall I say it fifty more times? Will that help? An opinion that probably guilty doesn'tmean guilty is not flawed, in fact, it's factually true.
"If you disagree with the findings then fine - you can pick out parts of the report and tell us what you disagree with... but you haven't done that either."
The reason I haven't done that is because I haven't disagreed with them that he's probably guilty. If you could get that into your head, you may begin to understand.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
Think that's game set and match.
Knew you'd come out with that.
Forum bingo - I've just won a line, which basically means that the person I am debating with is a confirmed child.
What sort of person writes 'game, set and match' on a forum?
Dear me.
------------------------------
What sort of person needs to be told something fifty times and STILL keeps changing it? I'd say an idiot but I don't think you are. I think you're just on the wind up,to be honest.
Probably guilty means probably a racist does it not?
No, it means probably guilty of racial abuse. Being guilty of racial abuse doesn't make you a racist. Holding thoughts that a race is inferior to your own makes you a racist. Racially abusing somebody doesn't always mean you think him/her inferior, often and certainly in the case of football matches people will use anything to wind up an opponent. It doesn't mean the person is racist.
Holding thoughts that a race is inferior to your own makes you a racist.
Oh, the old unknown unknown, we don't know if Suarez holds these views while punching kittens and never will.
Probably does though.
"I have only disagreed that probably guilty means guilty."
Listen, just because you don't understand the system very much does not mean there's any confusion on my part.
Stop, and try to understand what is being said to you.
The way you make comments suggests that it might have been possible to prove that Suarez made racist comments but they couldn't, so they just went with probably instead.
No.
In the panel that he faced - only two possibilities exist... as you put it:
- Probably innocent
- Probably guilty
So, in this case, probably guilty results in a guilty verdict.
Nothing else matters. He was found guilty.
You say:
"I have only disagreed that probably guilty means guilty."
You're wrong.
In this instance, it does - because that's the basis for the decison making.
Now, if you disagree that he is guilty - fine - as I said, you can give reasons why that is so.
What sort of person needs to be told something fifty times and STILL keeps changing it? I'd say an idiot but I don't think you are. I think you're just on the wind up,to be honest.
The reason this is still going on is because you're unable to read and understand basic explanations - probably because you refuse to accept you might be wrong.
I understood what you meant from the start.
Suarez punches Hamsters, not Kittens
Wow he still refuses to take what I have written and changes it with the added 'sounds Luke's now.
Once again and for the final time I accept that he was probably guilty but I disagree that probably guilty means guilty. They used the burden of proof which means they found him more likely than not guilty. I have accepted that. Accepted, you see accepted? Getting there? One for good measure accepted. Not dismissed.
You were already proved wrong about it being a court now can you accepted I said accepted and not dismissed?
I disagree that probably guilty means guilty
Well you're wrong.
In a court of law, probably guilty means guilty and the same applies here.
The degree of probability is different, but the principle is the same.
I appreciate you're either too stupid to understand or too stubborn to accept it, but until you do, you'll just keep repeating the same incorrect statement - over and over.
You haven't proven me wrong about anything by the way - your terminology of calling it 'real' was embarrassingly incorrect.
Good work with the comment through - I'll be on for a house in the forum bingo soon.
Still not getting it. He was found probably guilty. I accept that. I don't accept this means he was guilty, like a real court need to find.
Sign in if you want to comment
Disappointed with Villa fans
Page 8 of 20
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 17/12/12
comment by Badgerhands friend of Benteke (U12779)
posted 41 seconds ago
Why don't we all agree to disagree.
All fans other than Liverpool fans agree that Suarez is a bucktoothed Klan member.
Liverpool fans disagree and see him as a fine young man.
----------------------------------------
It's funny but after this one incident, he's a racist but after being part black himself, having a black grandfather, black friends, black teammates, giving money and appearing himself to charties in Africa, the one incident somehow means he's racist against all the other evidence.
posted on 17/12/12
Probably a racist though.
Said that yourself
posted on 17/12/12
comment by Badgerhands friend of Benteke (U12779)
posted 8 seconds ago
Probably a racist though.
Said that yourself
---------------------------------
No, no I didn't. I said he was found to be probably guilty of racial abuse. I didn't say I think he was or more to the point one racial incident against all else makes somebody a racist or even that racially abusing somebody makes you a racist.
posted on 17/12/12
"I said he was found to be probably guilty of racial abuse."
Probably a racist then?
posted on 17/12/12
comment by Badgerhands friend of Benteke (U12779)
posted 59 seconds ago
"I said he was found to be probably guilty of racial abuse."
Probably a racist then?
-----------------------------
No. I answered that already.
Do I think he is a racist? Definitely not? Why?
Being part black himself, having a black grandfather, black friends, black teammates, giving money and appearing himself to charties in Africa is enough to convince me.
Do I think one incident against everything else makes him a racist? No.
Do I think racial abuse makes somebody a racist? No.
posted on 17/12/12
"But you haven't, instead you've attempted to change the meaning of 'real' and changed 'accepted' to 'dismissed'. "
No - you're just refusing to listen.
A court of law is a court of law.
A civil court is a civil court.
The word 'real' doesn't feature - and you were wrong to use it.
On the actual case itself - your opinion is flawed. I've explained why, but if you need further clarification, do let me know.
posted on 17/12/12
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
"But you haven't, instead you've attempted to change the meaning of 'real' and changed 'accepted' to 'dismissed'. "
No - you're just refusing to listen.
A court of law is a court of law.
A civil court is a civil court.
The word 'real' doesn't feature - and you were wrong to use it.
On the actual case itself - your opinion is flawed. I've explained why, but if you need further clarification, do let me know.
--------------------
A panel is a panel, a court is a court. It's really simple.
My opinion isn't flawed, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that probably guilty isn't the same as guilty and your refusal to accept this is somewhat mindboggling.
posted on 17/12/12
"Do I think racial abuse makes somebody a racist? No."
So he is probably is guilty of racist abuse but because all his friends are black and he bought the "Live Aid" record his possibly not a racist.
Ok, think I've got it.
posted on 17/12/12
comment by Badgerhands friend of Benteke (U12779)
posted 1 minute ago
"Do I think racial abuse makes somebody a racist? No."
So he is probably is guilty of racist abuse but because all his friends are black and he bought the "Live Aid" record his possibly not a racist.
Ok, think I've got it.
---------------------
Correct. And if 100% beyond all doubt he was guilty of racial abuse, there would still be overwhelming evidence to suggest he isn't a racist.
posted on 17/12/12
Whilst I was referring to a court, as in the building where they practise beyond all reasonable doubt, upon doing a quick search I have found further evidence of the difference.
One is a tribunal(the fa panel) one is a court.
Think that's game set and match. So we can move on from that part at least.
posted on 17/12/12
So in short.
There are known, knowns such as Suarez said something racist.
There are unknown knowns, such as he said something racist but once dropped 50p in the water aid charity box so possibly isn't racist but probably said something racist once.
And there are unknown, unkowns. Such as things we don't know that we don't know about Suarez such as he is definatley a racist but possibly not because we don't know what we don't know.
Ok defo got it now.
posted on 17/12/12
If that's what you wanna go with, then ok.
posted on 17/12/12
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Semantics - it's still 'real'.
Your opinion is definitely flawed. You're disagreeing with it because the decision is based on probability - but what else can it be based on?
There's DNA results, are there?
It's a flawed opinion.
If you disagree with the findings then fine - you can pick out parts of the report and tell us what you disagree with... but you haven't done that either.
posted on 17/12/12
Think that's game set and match.
Knew you'd come out with that.
Forum bingo - I've just won a line, which basically means that the person I am debating with is a confirmed child.
What sort of person writes 'game, set and match' on a forum?
Dear me.
posted on 17/12/12
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 24 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Semantics - it's still 'real'.
Your opinion is definitely flawed. You're disagreeing with it because the decision is based on probability - but what else can it be based on?
---------------------
Once again, I have not disagreed that he is p[robably guilty. I have only disagreed that probably guilty means guilty. How many times do I have to say this to make you understand? You are capable of taking this information in aren't you? Shall I say it fifty more times? Will that help? An opinion that probably guilty doesn'tmean guilty is not flawed, in fact, it's factually true.
"If you disagree with the findings then fine - you can pick out parts of the report and tell us what you disagree with... but you haven't done that either."
The reason I haven't done that is because I haven't disagreed with them that he's probably guilty. If you could get that into your head, you may begin to understand.
posted on 17/12/12
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
Think that's game set and match.
Knew you'd come out with that.
Forum bingo - I've just won a line, which basically means that the person I am debating with is a confirmed child.
What sort of person writes 'game, set and match' on a forum?
Dear me.
------------------------------
What sort of person needs to be told something fifty times and STILL keeps changing it? I'd say an idiot but I don't think you are. I think you're just on the wind up,to be honest.
posted on 17/12/12
Probably guilty means probably a racist does it not?
posted on 17/12/12
No, it means probably guilty of racial abuse. Being guilty of racial abuse doesn't make you a racist. Holding thoughts that a race is inferior to your own makes you a racist. Racially abusing somebody doesn't always mean you think him/her inferior, often and certainly in the case of football matches people will use anything to wind up an opponent. It doesn't mean the person is racist.
posted on 17/12/12
Holding thoughts that a race is inferior to your own makes you a racist.
Oh, the old unknown unknown, we don't know if Suarez holds these views while punching kittens and never will.
Probably does though.
posted on 17/12/12
"I have only disagreed that probably guilty means guilty."
Listen, just because you don't understand the system very much does not mean there's any confusion on my part.
Stop, and try to understand what is being said to you.
The way you make comments suggests that it might have been possible to prove that Suarez made racist comments but they couldn't, so they just went with probably instead.
No.
In the panel that he faced - only two possibilities exist... as you put it:
- Probably innocent
- Probably guilty
So, in this case, probably guilty results in a guilty verdict.
Nothing else matters. He was found guilty.
You say:
"I have only disagreed that probably guilty means guilty."
You're wrong.
In this instance, it does - because that's the basis for the decison making.
Now, if you disagree that he is guilty - fine - as I said, you can give reasons why that is so.
posted on 17/12/12
What sort of person needs to be told something fifty times and STILL keeps changing it? I'd say an idiot but I don't think you are. I think you're just on the wind up,to be honest.
The reason this is still going on is because you're unable to read and understand basic explanations - probably because you refuse to accept you might be wrong.
I understood what you meant from the start.
posted on 17/12/12
Suarez punches Hamsters, not Kittens
posted on 17/12/12
Wow he still refuses to take what I have written and changes it with the added 'sounds Luke's now.
Once again and for the final time I accept that he was probably guilty but I disagree that probably guilty means guilty. They used the burden of proof which means they found him more likely than not guilty. I have accepted that. Accepted, you see accepted? Getting there? One for good measure accepted. Not dismissed.
You were already proved wrong about it being a court now can you accepted I said accepted and not dismissed?
posted on 17/12/12
I disagree that probably guilty means guilty
Well you're wrong.
In a court of law, probably guilty means guilty and the same applies here.
The degree of probability is different, but the principle is the same.
I appreciate you're either too stupid to understand or too stubborn to accept it, but until you do, you'll just keep repeating the same incorrect statement - over and over.
You haven't proven me wrong about anything by the way - your terminology of calling it 'real' was embarrassingly incorrect.
Good work with the comment through - I'll be on for a house in the forum bingo soon.
posted on 17/12/12
Still not getting it. He was found probably guilty. I accept that. I don't accept this means he was guilty, like a real court need to find.
Page 8 of 20
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13