[Siderite]

I’d say that there is an end in sight, given it seems to have ended. :-)

[Siderite]

I’d say Stalin is a representation of the issue I oppose. A rigid dogmatist. My own stance is to dislike any form of rigid ideology that forces itself upon others, be it religious fundamentalism or communism, so my own thoughts on Stalin is that I disagree with his moral stance as I do the religious when they try to justify things I disagree with. While I am sure Christianity has had some influence on my thoughts, since I am from a country with a large cultural Christian past, I would say that my ideas have formed from other things too. So I wouldn’t say that God is a necessary basis for morals to make sense.

[Siderite]

People who believe in God have said they should kill Jews, as they did in the Crusades, because God wills it and they justify it as good as a result of such beliefs.

Also, the people who said we should kill 6 million Jews don’t represent all atheists, do they? Many also had weird occultist beliefs. The world isn’t a binary. Dogmatism should be opposed, no matter its stripe, as I have said.

[Siderite]

That’s reliant on Southgate starting him, which is not a given.

1 user thanked author for this post.

BigLeftToe

[Siderite]

Moral systems predate Christianity and some of them don’t come from Christianity. It doesn’t need a god to know how stealing or destroying someone’s stuff can be wrong because it hurts others.

[Siderite]

Given such ‘destruction’ causes observable misery to others I’d say that’s evidence for it being something which can be deemed immoral. It usually takes ideological dogmatism to portray such actions that cause harm, because it’s for the good of’God’, the ‘people’ or whoever they claim to stand for.

[Siderite]

The problem I have with BPG’s argument about needing a god as moral arbiter is that it leaves humans justifying actions that harm others because ‘God says it’s right’. This is what allowed Christian zealots of the past to wage war and commit massacres through history. The retort is usually that these weren’t or aren’t true Christians, but these ‘not true Christians’ would say the same about those rejecting their methods, citing scripture to justify actions that harm others. A humanist perspective of basing moral decisions on the foundations of ‘the golden rule’, involving basing decisions on empathy, treating others how you would want to be treated, and realising such moral decisions can lead to advantageous outcomes for a peaceful life for yourself and everyone else can also form a moral bedrock. I don’t think such thinking is precluded from being a Christian; I would say that Christians who developed such positive morals in Christianity were (maybe unknowingly) dipping into such thought when ascribing them to God.

JI is right in pointing out to Gurny that moral issues exist outside of religion. Sometimes atheists can argue as if that without religion we’d have a moral utopia without irrationality. Yet, without religion, many still turn to nonsense pseudoscience and conspiracy theories like the idea that ancient aliens developed human society or that there is a Zionist occupation government that aims to control population numbers and dilute the blood of white people through immigration and mixed race marriages. These things do not necessarily require belief in God or religious belief. Also, there are other extreme ideologies that have caused misery through warfare and atrocities, such as fascism, Nazism and communism. The problem for me is dogmatism, which does include thinking along the lines of using morality as a means of being driven by God, but is not limited to that. Arguments from “God desires others to be treated lesser because they are of heretic or heathen beliefs” to “we need to root out the bourgeoisie and make them pay for causing the suffering of the workers” are both dogmatic ways of thinking that dehumanises others and causes oppression and suffering. Gurny’s posts neglect the need to be sceptical of ideology outside of religion and BPG does the opposite.

I would also say that BPG misunderstands the mindset of the zealot who justifies the deaths of others. The Nazis committed the Holocaust because they thought it was moral and they were doing humanity a favour by ridding the world of those who cause it harm. It doesn’t come about because of the lack of Christian belief, but because they are applying a similar dogmatic mindset to another ideology. A large part of the problem comes with moral certainties without due care for others and justifications based on ideology. Such ideological certainties can convince many that something which harms others is not such a big deal, because it suits those they care for, be it God, their favoured ‘race’ or the workers.

Of course there are more complexities in that some ideologies are worse than others, because their teachings have less going for them. Nazism is worse than Christianity, because the latter can provide teachings that can be positive while the former doesn’t, but both can encourage dogmatism and dogmatic/fundamentalist adherents to both would be convinced they are doing the right thing for humanity.

Tl;dr, for these reasons I do not have much time for arguments about morality being based around God, because that can be used to justify immoral behaviour which can be passed on, because God says it’s right. I would say that the good aspects of Christianity (yes, Gurny, I do think they exist) come from the human philosophy of seeing how you want to be treated and treating others the same with empathic thoughts. This basis can form moral systems that have developed globally and among many backgrounds, religions and non-religions. The only difference is that Christians link such morals to being guided or instilled by God. I have no issue with that, so long as they don’t start making comments about how without their religion there would be no moral framework or basis.

[Siderite]

Fortunately, these specific brand of fundies don’t have the same sway as Islamic theocratic movements in many Islamic countries, but the Christian right as a whole are a force in the Republican party.

[Siderite]

The web page could admittedly be clearer in specifying the number in the squad, but I see no reason to assume it’s anything but a normal 11-11 with subs. As 5 of the supporters, maximum, can be bought, that gives around 11 squad places (assuming 5 subs) to raffle winners, if it is 11-11. I certainly don’t think the club would advertise a raffle for something where all spaces could be just bought out for some 5 a side game.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Awaywego

[Siderite]

My understanding is that there is a £10 raffle for a chance to make the squad. However 5 of the spots on the supporter’s team and 1 on the legends team can be bought for £1000 and £2500,respectively. If no-one goes for the guaranteed spots, they will go to those who went for the raffle. Either way, there should be several spots available to those participating in the raffle, even if the 6 guaranteed spots are taken up. If I am understanding correctly.

2 users thanked author for this post.

iron64, Awaywego

[Siderite]

I hope the weather will be fine, as it won’t be pleasant walking down the desolation rows of the backstreets of Scunthorpe if a hard rain’s gonna fall.

[Siderite]

Trying and failing with a takeover bid doesn’t match the mismanagement of Swann and the saviour.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, cassidystash, MK Iron

[Siderite]

The humility of Michelle is such a change after the previous two egos. No need for brags or reminders about how she saved the club and we should be forever grateful. The primary focus is on righting the club and steering it in the right direction, not basking in being the saviour or bragging about how she saved the club, so we shouldn’t question anything. We can and should be grateful, I don’t see much to question or complain about, but this mindset is best for leadership and ensuring the decisions are the best ones.

11 users thanked author for this post.

doris, ironfromafar, Noster, lesgeo, TheJuryeffsOut, Iron-awe, glanford, SDH57, iron64, Just Iron, Ferrite

[Siderite]

Legend gets bounded about a lot, but Hayes will always be an Iron great to me. Some of the ‘lazy Hayesy’ stuff was ridiculous.

6 users thanked author for this post.

ironjig, Iron-awe, Just Iron, lesgeo, Ferrite, Apollo11

[Siderite]

I am not astounded he’d be fast and loose with the truth, but I am surprised that he thought he could fool people with something so obviously dubious. At the end he was saying how “Hilton was mostly good.” All while he was supposedly spearheading a dossier documenting Hilton’s problems.

Don’t forget that he’s also making out that he is a fair figure who came to bat for the Matts after their banning orders. While omitting that he made caveats in that defence about how they were in talks with the Swanns, which always was an attempt to discredit them and Bru. Hardly the fair figure he is now trying to portray himself as.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Apollo11

[Siderite]

Bobby Grant plays for them too.

[Siderite]

64 wrote:

Notice he’s not said which comments his objects to,

He seems to have objected to yours. He seems to conflate negative things said about him with abuse.

[Siderite]

Bishops Finger wrote:

David four names played Bell and his cronies like a fiddle ,

Rumours are that he might have added another name now.

[Siderite]

Max Bell wrote:

Standing on the sidelines and bitching does rather sum up why this forum has completely died since Luke Thornhill handed it over to Matt Blanchard, though.

Think it has more to do with the fact that in Luke’s day Twitter and Facebook didn’t exist or were less ubiquitous. Since they gained traction internet forums across the web have declined. The Facebook page is hardly some den of welcoming views, where Hilton critics got abuse far worse than anything on here, yet it gets plenty of people talking.

As for comments about Matt, you don’t help yourself with your snide digs in the same manner as you criticise, and putting out false information to undermine Matt and Iron Bru because it suited Dodgy Dave.

[Siderite]

People who disagree with you aren’t always illogical, lesser minded fools, Gurny. They might just have a different opinion, based off reason. I felt there were cases to be made on both sides of the Dean in or out debate. I disagreed with him staying, but it doesn’t mean I don’t think those who disagree with me were abandoning logic; they raised some good points. It doesn’t make anyone ‘abandoning logic and forethought’ because they disagree with you.

[Siderite]

I think a leadership change would only claw back some die hards. I think the swing voters and most of the public would see it as another PM with no public backing being thrust on the public, and would be just as frustrated with the Tories as they are now.

As for BPG, I suspect he would be praying for PM Farage, not the Tories.

[Siderite]

I would be incredibly surprised if Tories win the election. They’re doomed, barring a miracle.

[Siderite]

Felt Boston were one of the best footballing sides to visit the Attis this season, from what I saw. Well done to them.

Their match v Dag & Red should prove interesting next season. Daggers fans are not keen on Boston after Steve Evans led Boston to the Conference title in 2002, with Dag & Red 2nd, only for Boston to have found to have broken the rules. They saw it as cheating and do not like Boston Utd at all as a result. They haven’t played each other since, until next season.

[Siderite]

No, Dean wasn’t given the excuse of having to start somewhere after a year and 4-5 months, as opposed to Butler’s 2 months as an interim coach at a team in freefall at the time, because that’s not a good comparison.

[Siderite]

It’s a risk, but any managerial appointment would be. All managers have to start somewhere and given the context, we were unlikely to get an experienced manager from above, like Ardley or Sheridan, whatever you think of them. It would have been someone like this or another manager with non-league jobs on their CV. The alternative was to stick with someone with many known faults that made him not good enough, in my opinion.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Just Iron, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Gurnelista wrote:

Well, plenty to lose if we go backwards! And the reason he might not succeed is lack of money and lack of experience, except with the ladies, apparently. But, at least he speaks nicely.

Passion and he’s a nice guy were the most common reasons for sticking with Jimmy.

[Siderite]

We seem to have found the nothing that the something came from.

[Siderite]

Well, yes, it hasn’t been 18 months (18 months was what was reported at the time) exactly yet since Jan 2023, so any remaining time will have to be allocated for. Still better than giving another year or more deal then having to pay out because fans have turned by September.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Iron-awe wrote:

Cliff Byrne’s Right Peg wrote:

Looks like the contract wasn’t expired after all according to the latest podcast. If so we are potentially paying off another management team unless a clause was inserted within the deal.

WG assured us it was so it must have been true.

Do the Iron Hour people have any knowledge or is this WG style guesswork?

Jimmy signed an 18 month contract and no extension has ever been announced.

[Siderite]

Or he realised it was intended as a light hearted joke with no real malice intended.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Author]

Posts