Orkun Kokcu
- Thread starter sglowrider
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
I don't think he’s the right answer if we’re looking for someone to come in and immediately push us to title contention. Maybe, at his peak, he can do that, but right now unless he’s being viewed for depth, I don’t think it’s the right choice.
Yeah he's additional option
Anyone seen him over a full game a few times to give a bette overview than YouTube. Think players to bring in should really be based on, are they level with or superior to Sabitzer. We already have a Fred so I’d want any incoming midfielders to be an upgrade on Sabitzer whether we keep him or not. Mctominay needs to be shown the door
Sign him up - especially as he's triggered so many intolerant so called liberals.
Muslims believe acting on homosexual urges is sinful. Just as we believe having sex outside of marriage is sinful or drinking alcohol is sinful.
It's funny how nobody gets triggered by Muslims not advocating drinking alcohol or sex outside of marriage - but your only triggered about Muslims refusing to promote homosexual relations.
It's absurd and stems from your own western cultural hangups.
Gay bashing is not common in Muslim countries - you can't assign that baggage to our perspectives.
Engage your brain for feck's sake. You're equating not drinking alcohol or not having sex outside of marriage - two completely pro-social/harmless stances - with not persecuting people for who they are. How can you not see this false equivocation?
Also, imagine saying you're not taking the knee in support of BLM because you don't want to promote being black. It'd be rightly ridiculed but yet people on this forum are saying the equivalent about queer people.
How is considering homosexual sex sinful persecution? If your gay and you have sex with someone of the same 9gender - I consider that sinful. How is my personal belief persecuting you? I'm not going to treat you any differently because of my believes.
I believe anyone who drinks alcohol committing sin. How am I persecuting you by holding that belief? I don't treat people who drink alcohol any different to those who don't . I don't treat people who have gay sex any different than those who dont.
People need to stop automatically leaping from holding the belief that something is sinful to persecution.
It's absurd you think being homosexual is just an "urge" and equating it to choosing to commit adultery or drinking alcohol. There in lies the problem with your position and why it inevitably leads to being discriminatory.
Edit: sorry, misread - sex outside of marriage, not adultery.
So would you think that being gay is a choice?
How have you drawn that from what he has said. If you’re going to have a discussion about this at least be reasonable. When did he say that?
It was a question, not a statement of his beliefs. He said it's a sin to act on the urges, and uses drinking alcohol as another example, so I'm asking if he thinks it's a choice to be gay or if people are born that way.
Read what he responded to my post, he clearly implied that by referring to it as "homosexual urges".
>doesn't like gay people
>is called kok
>is called kok
I'll be properly depressed if we sign an out-and-out homophobe.
He's not even the right winger we need
That doesn’t imply it is a choice. In almost every context, urges come irrespective of choice (such as I am urged to eat sugary foods). You can argue that it is a choice whether or not to listen to those urges - but again I would rather not draw conclusions based on what he hasn’t actually said.
Is your sexuality just an urge then? You just constantly battling the choice of which way you might swing? Again, trying to draw an equivalence between the urge to eat sugary foods and who you are attracted to, is just mad.
Sexual urges are different to the idea of homosexuality being driven by urges.
I didn't say it was an urge. This is my issue. Of course I am not equating eating sugary foods to sexual urges - I was just giving an example to show you that having an urge is involuntary but our choice to respond to urges is not (again I am not commenting on whether homosexuality is an urge or not). My point is, in this thread and a lot of RedCafe in particular, these discussions are rarely about coming to a middle ground and trying to understand each other. It seems that whenever a somewhat controversial topic comes up, it just ends up being a point-scoring contest and part of that is taking what people say out of context or drawing conclusions about someone's whole point of view or belief system based on one snippet.
I don't think Lash or anyone else in here is trying to point score. They have a point of view and are discussing it appropriately and sensibly.
I dont undertsand what the fuss is about his opinion not to wear an arm band. It is his belief and I respect that. I am a Christain and I wouldnt want to wear the arm band based on my belief. I have nothing against anyone wo wears it or promote it but I wouldnt and that should be respected. I would want him in united if he is good enough to play for us and I have nothing against his views.
Some players have refused to kneel in the epl while others have refused to wear the puppy in memory of the vets and that is fine because we live in a free world.
Please let us try to continue to stick to football as much as we can.
Some players have refused to kneel in the epl while others have refused to wear the puppy in memory of the vets and that is fine because we live in a free world.
Please let us try to continue to stick to football as much as we can.
Ok, you're arguing semantics rather than the topic. The poster did refer to it as an urge, so not really sure what I'm taking out of context to what the poster said. Maybe it was clumsy language, but they are more than welcome to clarify.
There is a difference in refusing to wear a symbol which is associated with an army that has terrorised and oppressed your country/people than it is to wear an armband showing nothing more than you support the equal rights of a marginalised group. What is with people and the horrific false equivalences being used in this thread.
Sorry mate but I disagree. If someone's religious belief does not agree with a way of life, imposing it on him does not seem fair to me and wont foster acceptance. He has not gone ahead to declare hatred for a particular group, all he has said is that it is against his religious belief and he wont be wearing it. I think it is disrespectful to ask someone to go against his religious beliefs. Again if the MODS think my post is too extreme then it should be deleted but my opinion is that he has not done anything wrong.
This bolded bit here, if that's the case that Orkun believes, then he should have worn the armband.
Showing solidarity to the LGBQT community is about accepting them as people/equals.
This solidarity needs to be shown because they have a higher rate of mental health/self harm/suicide because they are made to feel less than equal and "sinners".
I can't stress this enough, this is about showing support to a minority who are ostracised and made to feel less than equal by greater society. It's about saying to them, you are a fellow human and we respect you as a human.
In this world, there are many context in someone’s belief and people can just say it’s ‘’xxx belief’’. That’s definitely wrong. But the problem in your argument is that I didn’t just write 131 words and 7 sentences in my first post to just say it’s only because religious beliefs without any inside context of explanation, but instead, I gave enough context of explanation in that belief for you to read and understand. It’s up to you whether you are willing to be more open to read it and do your research if you want to know more. But what matter right now is after reading Kokcu’s statement, are you still accepting and respecting his decision not to wear the rainbow armband?
In the religious belief like Christian for example (I’m assuming this is similar with Muslim), they believe in God as the creator meaning it’s God‘s decision to make person male or female. By doing transgender, the person opposes God’s decision. Hence why some of them disagree with the idea of transgender but it doesn’t mean they disrespect the transgender decision. It’s like muslims refuse to wear cross necklace because it’s a symbolic of Christian or Christian can disagree with muslims or Buddhism or other religious but doesn’t mean all of those people who disagree are disrespecting and hating other religious. But there are also some people who are disrespecting and hating and that’s called discrimination.
Have you read the statement that Kokcu said? If yes, what’s your view on that?
Last edited:
You may have wrote 131 words and 7 sentences on the context, but it boils down to because my religion says so. You can fluff it up with, I'm not the right messenger or I don't think it's right to be the one to promote it, but then that just opens up more questions about motive. From his statement, you don't know and I don't know his actual stance on homosexuality or in general the rainbow armband campaign and that's the point of why it's a disappointing statement.
Getting a striker would probably slash half of our budget, so qe're going to have to make some cheap signings in some positions. We need a CM but given we have a top player like Eriksen that can fill in, I'd say this is one position where we can risk going for prospects like Kokcu
I'm not promoting it. I giving you information or knowledge or context that you are lacking about the background of the religion such as those religious people like Muslim (Kokcu) and Christian (Pacquiao) believe in God as the creator meaning it’s God‘s decision to make person male or female, and by doing transgender, the person opposes God’s decision. You don't need to believe in god or those religious belief, you just need to be more open that some don't mean to hurt or hate due to of this.
I don't know why you can't see it but from my view it's clear that he respects homosexuality and feels everyone is free to do what they want or feel, which include people who choose to agree with homosexuality and he choses to follow his religious belief. The statement shows no harm and hate (Discrimination is a harmful treatment of people and groups based on characteristics such as race, religious, gender, age, or sexual orientation).
I'm trying to understand why in your view it is unacceptable to be agree-to-disagree. Do you consider agree-to-disagree as harmful or hate or disrespectful?
Last edited:
I’m not Muslim.
I wouldn’t wear a poppy. I wouldn’t wear a LGBTQ armband. I don’t think I’d kneel. Organised social/political messages have no place in sport or entertainment and the reaction toward those who decline to participate is ironically intolerant.
As long as he’s respectfully observing the values of others - what’s the issue. Is he disrupting the movement? Did he rip the armband and toss it away in disgust?
I wouldn’t wear a poppy. I wouldn’t wear a LGBTQ armband. I don’t think I’d kneel. Organised social/political messages have no place in sport or entertainment and the reaction toward those who decline to participate is ironically intolerant.
As long as he’s respectfully observing the values of others - what’s the issue. Is he disrupting the movement? Did he rip the armband and toss it away in disgust?
Why not? Should politics and social messages be reserved to news updates that come on the TV every few hours, or the papers? What a weird idea. Limiting the reach of political issues is precisely how you end up with an uninformed populace. Football is inherently community driven and has been since its inception. It's the same with entertainment (film, music, documentaries etc.). Or do you only absorb 100% apolitical media? Utterly bonkers.
This is not. He may be saying you're free to do what you want, then says he disagrees with their sexuality, it doesn't square. I know the statement itself doesn't have any harm or hate, because it's a PR crafted statement to do just that.
The problem is the vaguery. What are you disagreeing about? Homosexuals being homosexual? The rainbow armband isn't a good cause? I don't have to agree-to-disagree if you just simply refuse to state your position.
Maybe we can start a second Kokcu thread in the General? Then we can discuss his footballing in here and his armband and Muslim faith in the general.
Can't wait for tonight, really hope he can make his mark on the game against Roma as he does in the league.
Can't wait for tonight, really hope he can make his mark on the game against Roma as he does in the league.
> last name pronounced cock chew
I will stop responding now and will move to that thread if it kicks up. I'm repeating myself at this point anyway.
Him and Gimenez will be close watches for me tonight. I am interested to them against top European opposition.
It's always the loudest homophobes who are the gayest
Joke's on him, it's actually **** choo.
I agree 100%. There is just a little problem called discrimination. You see many people want to
deny equal rights to people who are different. It is too easy to dismiss this.