Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Warning: Potential Bradford Good News Story


  • Please log in to reply
205 replies to this topic

#121 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,666 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:39 AM

And by all means keep doing that, but my point is that if you come on here saying "loads of people on twitter agree", you should be aware that people will call that out as a poor argument whatever side of the debate you fall on "fella".
SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#122 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,201 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:55 AM

Only if you take that one element in isolation, if you want to make a proper assessment of the argument then view it in its entirety.

#123 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:58 AM

Pretty certain you can find people supporting any number of views on twitter; absolutely anything.

Urine weak argument. In fact, not even that strong.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#124 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,201 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:04 AM

Pretty certain you can find people supporting any number of views on twitter; absolutely anything.

Urine weak argument. In fact, not even that strong.


See my answer above!

Are you seriously arguing that this companies activities are 100% palatable to you, that their industry is moral and you find their association with Rugby League in no way objectionable?

#125 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:10 AM

See my answer above!

Are you seriously arguing that this companies activities are 100% palatable to you, that their industry is moral and you find their association with Rugby League in no way objectionable?


Go on then, tell me what the Bulls should have done?

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#126 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,666 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:11 AM

Only if you take that one element in isolation, if you want to make a proper assessment of the argument then view it in its entirety.


Which begs the question, why did you even need to post it? It doesn't really strengthen your argument to be honest, in fact quite the opposite as it implies you don't have the faith that what you have written alone is enough, and is only validated by similar thoughts of other equally anonymous (to me at least) people on the internet.

I don't really want to get into a debate about the morality of the sponsor, I believe there is no swaying of your mind in particular, but it irks me when people copy a load of specially selected opinion from the public as if that alone is in someway compelling or could sway opinion.
SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#127 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,201 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:17 AM

Which begs the question, why did you even need to post it? It doesn't really strengthen your argument to be honest, in fact quite the opposite as it implies you don't have the faith that what you have written alone is enough, and is only validated by similar thoughts of other equally anonymous (to me at least) people on the internet.

I don't really want to get into a debate about the morality of the sponsor, I believe there is no swaying of your mind in particular, but it irks me when people copy a load of specially selected opinion from the public as if that alone is in someway compelling or could sway opinion.


In my business we collect and display all evidence in support of our argument!




#128 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,875 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:21 AM

Are you seriously arguing that this companies activities are 100% palatable to you, that their industry is moral and you find their association with Rugby League in no way objectionable?


I'd have to say I do find them very objectionable to a point.

Be honest (as I believe you are), would you advocate Wakefield turn down something like this?

I don't think Mr. Glover (Like Mr. Khan) has riches such that he could afford to do so??

#129 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,666 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:22 AM

In my business we collect and display all evidence in support of our argument!


But it wasn't...ah forget it. I'll just be on twitter searching for people talking about banging their head against a brick wall.

Edited by Amber Avenger, 12 November 2012 - 10:23 AM.

SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#130 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,201 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:22 AM

Urine weak argument. In fact, not even that strong.


Interesting, because the tactic of isolating one element in an attempt to discredit the whole argument is also seen as "urine weak" and often betrays the lack of any credible counter evidence.

The fact remains that a lot of people object to these types of companies and this industry, that they chose to express their disgust by via Twitter doesn't invalidate their opinions.


Edited by OMEGA, 12 November 2012 - 10:23 AM.


#131 Rob

Rob
  • Coach
  • 482 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:24 AM

See my answer above!

Are you seriously arguing that this companies activities are 100% palatable to you, that their industry is moral and you find their association with Rugby League in no way objectionable?


What industry is moral? How do you judge that?

I think I'm right in saying that devout Muslims cannot borrow money at any rate of interest. Which would make even the lowest of mortgage rates 'immoral'. Would it be right to therefore avoid any association with any kind of bank or mortgage lender merely because someone else judges them as 'immoral'?

Once you have established the principle that its OK to borrow money and pay it back with interest, the rest is just a subjective opinion. A bit of a pointless argument.

#132 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,589 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:49 AM

Against my experience of these things, I've unlocked this thread. I will be carefully monitoring it though.

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#133 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,875 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:02 PM

What industry is moral? How do you judge that?

I think I'm right in saying that devout Muslims cannot borrow money at any rate of interest. Which would make even the lowest of mortgage rates 'immoral'. Would it be right to therefore avoid any association with any kind of bank or mortgage lender merely because someone else judges them as 'immoral'?

Once you have established the principle that its OK to borrow money and pay it back with interest, the rest is just a subjective opinion. A bit of a pointless argument.


I agree with that post entirely. I don't really see the point of the argument. AFAIK "Usuary" is against the Muslim faith, but that term is associated with "excessive rates" of interest, so by varying definitions some people may not see any interest charged as being fair, and look at money lending as being an act of kindness, others may allow for some element of interest to repay the favour at least. My own view is that money lending should be limited to being a not for profit bueiness but hey...........

A pointless argument I would not like to see escalate and dissapoint CKN.

I'd like Mr. Omega who i find extremely interesting in his posts on RL to just answer my question above.

"Would you advocate Wakefield turn down something like this? given Mr. Glover (Like Mr. Khan) does not have such riches that he could afford to do so without damaging Bulls prospects??"

If he says YES good luck to him for a strong moral stance, If he says no then good luck to him for taking a pragmatic view.

Either way elongating the "usuary" argument will go nowhere.......

I think we have all the views, and all very laudable they are and well made too, perhaps we should "agree to disagree"

#134 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,251 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:10 PM

I agree with that post entirely. I don't really see the point of the argument. AFAIK "Usuary" is against the Muslim faith, but that term is associated with "excessive rates" of interest, so by varying definitions some people may not see any interest charged as being fair, and look at money lending as being an act of kindness, others may allow for some element of interest to repay the favour at least. My own view is that money lending should be limited to being a not for profit bueiness but hey...........

A pointless argument I would not like to see escalate and dissapoint CKN.

I'd like Mr. Omega who i find extremely interesting in his posts on RL to just answer my question above.

"Would you advocate Wakefield turn down something like this? given Mr. Glover (Like Mr. Khan) does not have such riches that he could afford to do so without damaging Bulls prospects??"

If he says YES good luck to him for a strong moral stance, If he says no then good luck to him for taking a pragmatic view.

Either way elongating the "usuary" argument will go nowhere.......

I think we have all the views, and all very laudable they are and well made too, perhaps we should "agree to disagree"


surely Omega won't reply to anything, since he will have realised that lap tops are made by poorly paid workers in far eastern sweatshops and will have binned his on principle.

He seems very selective in his high moral stance, as dosome others who use 'morality' to validate their views.
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#135 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,259 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:14 PM

Afaik they are now a much more diverse lender and have seen huge growth through their Vanquis Credit card operations.

Personally, i dont see any problem with Sl or clubs been sponsored by bookies, breweries , loan sharks etc as i feel the impact of these sponsors doesnt have a huge impact on the general demographic of rl supporters. I didnt start drinking tetleys or smoke regal due to sponsors!! At the present juncture, RL in general needs all the cash it can get and cannot afford to be selective when it comes to sponsors

I took out an Engage Mutual cash plan rather then Simply Health, mainly due to their sponsorship of SL. Admittedly though, I haven't started using Stobart...

St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

 

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, KĂžbenhavn Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.
 
Moderator of the International board


#136 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,201 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:18 PM

What industry is moral? How do you judge that?

I think I'm right in saying that devout Muslims cannot borrow money at any rate of interest. Which would make even the lowest of mortgage rates 'immoral'. Would it be right to therefore avoid any association with any kind of bank or mortgage lender merely because someone else judges them as 'immoral'?

Once you have established the principle that its OK to borrow money and pay it back with interest, the rest is just a subjective opinion. A bit of a pointless argument.


Most of us draw a line somewhere but some things are almost universally viewed as wrong and for me this type of exploitation is wrong!



#137 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,201 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:20 PM

any stuff in the media about tax avoidance? I think you'll find there is rather a lot.


I answered your question re: Probiz

If you've got a bee in your bonnet about that subject then knock yourself out.

#138 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,201 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:21 PM

I agree with that post entirely. I don't really see the point of the argument. AFAIK "Usuary" is against the Muslim faith, but that term is associated with "excessive rates" of interest, so by varying definitions some people may not see any interest charged as being fair, and look at money lending as being an act of kindness, others may allow for some element of interest to repay the favour at least. My own view is that money lending should be limited to being a not for profit bueiness but hey...........

A pointless argument I would not like to see escalate and dissapoint CKN.

I'd like Mr. Omega who i find extremely interesting in his posts on RL to just answer my question above.

"Would you advocate Wakefield turn down something like this? given Mr. Glover (Like Mr. Khan) does not have such riches that he could afford to do so without damaging Bulls prospects??"

If he says YES good luck to him for a strong moral stance, If he says no then good luck to him for taking a pragmatic view.

Either way elongating the "usuary" argument will go nowhere.......

I think we have all the views, and all very laudable they are and well made too, perhaps we should "agree to disagree"


I'd be just as vociferous and have the same objections if it were any other club including Wakefield.

#139 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,251 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:22 PM

I answered your question re: Probiz

If you've got a bee in your bonnet about that subject then knock yourself out.


thden why the fixation with Provident?
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#140 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,875 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:23 PM

I answered your question


Could you kindly answer mine?

Would you advocate Wakefield turn down something like this? given Mr. Glover (Like Mr. Khan) does not have such riches that he could afford to do so without damaging Bulls prospects??




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users