Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic

[Wibble]

Where is the false equivalency? He gave multiple, very similar examples.

Because not one was applicable to the Mason Greenwood situation. None involved United players, except Cantona which was totally different and dealt with appropriately by the club and courts, and the rest were convicted of crimes, rape mainly. He is back playing and has been fully (and hugely) paid all the way through so notional release from prison, rehabilitation and potentially playing again is completely irrelevant.

The only question here, since charges were dropped, is should someone like Mason Greenwood be allowed to play for the club after the way he behaved and after showing no remore, or seemingly even understanding of what he did. I'm with his lost sponsors (about his only real "punishment") and want nothing to do with such a character. All the rest is whataboutism or distraction from, or apology for, what he did, just because he can kick a ball well.

 

[Wibble]

Strawman arguments, false equivalency and accusations of hypocrisy infest this thread. Intentionally and unintentionally at times I suspect. Because a post contains a statement that in of itself is true (or potentially so) doesn't make the point of the post true.

• Domestic cats and Jaguars are both felines in the Order Carnivora.
• My cat never hurt anyone.
• Millions of domestic cats are safely weed by people.
• You know my cat is safe and even bought it for me.
• A Jaguar is a perfectly safe pet for a child.
• Therefore you not supporting the buying of a cat is hypocritical.

The first 4 statements are (or could be) true. But the point of such an argument is (more or less) a strawman argument, whataboutary based on a false equivalency, that leads to a totally false conclusion and accusations of hypocrisy.

So let's stop doing some or all of these things in this thread please.

 

[MackRobinson]

Because not one was applicable to the Mason Greenwood situation. None involved United players, except Cantona which was totally different and dealt with appropriately by the club and courts, and the rest were convicted of crimes, rape mainly. He is back playing and has been fully (and hugely) paid all the way through so notional release from prison, rehabilitation and potentially playing again is completely irrelevant.

The only question here, since charges were dropped, is should someone like Mason Greenwood be allowed to play for the club after the way he behaved and after showing no remore, or seemingly even understanding of what he did. I'm with his lost sponsors (about his only real "punishment") and want nothing to do with such a character. All the rest is whataboutism or distraction from, or apology for, what he did, just because he can kick a ball well.

Why is the hypothetical so offensive? The poster wasn’t attempting to make a persuasive argument (half of the op was dedicated to clarifying this) and wasn’t answering the question you think he should be answering. He stated doesn’t think Mason should play for the club, gave his reasons, then opined on rehabilitation of professional athletes who are convicted.

What am I missing here?

 

[Pronewbie]

I'm just sticking to football here. Pre-case Greenwood would be an upgrade over Hojlund. And I am not someone who thinks he's a generational talent.

Hope he does well at getafe so we don't have to splash the cash on another striker in the summer. We don't have the funds.

 

[Wibble]

Why is the hypothetical so offensive? The poster wasn’t attempting to make a persuasive argument (half of the op was dedicated to clarifying this) and wasn’t answering the question you think he should be answering. He stated doesn’t think Mason should play for the club, gave his reasons, then opined on rehabilitation of professional athletes who are convicted.

What am I missing here?

Did I say offensive?

It wasn't about answering a question of my choice. It is THE question. The rest is nothing to do with it and merely muddies the water intentionally or unintentionally. People who did what Greenwood did don't deserve a free pass and that is exactly what muddying the water does.

Rehabilitation for criminals after prison and a United footballer who assaulted a racist fan are totally irrelevant. They not only don't add anything to the discussion but they actively confuse the matter. But "he wasn't convicted" is also a terrible and irrelevant argument as we aren't discussing if he will be convicted of a crime as he wasn't, something we have known for a long time, yet people still keep bringing it up. You don't need to be convicted of a crime before having your character assessed based on your actions. Ryan Giggs hasn't been convicted of anything but would anyone trust or want such a person, with such significant ethical and moral failings, to represent the club again? I know I wouldn't. And he didn't threaten to rape anyone.

 

[MancunianAngels]

Comparing Greenwood to Cantona is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on this forum..

 

[golden_blunder]

I don't believe I've tried to equate what Greenwood was accused of to what Cantona did anywhere. I was simply speaking about fan backlash back then compared to if it happened today and his reintegration. Both players did spend time out of football though, so you're correct there.

I don't think there is any justification for violence no matter how far someone is "pushed" unless it's in an act of self defence due to them feeling threatened, I'm surprised that you feel this is acceptable or can be justified. How much violence do you think is acceptable to use in situations where one is antagonized but not at risk of being physically hurt? Similarly if Greenwood did what he was accused of there isn't a justification for that either.

What I do believe in though is the opportunity to reform and rehabilitate and I support a second chance for 99.99% of individuals. Something which I accept many may feel differently on and I don't intend to attempt to convince them otherwise.

Then I don’t understand why you used Cantona in your post.
as I said, we’re all human so I can understand Cantonas reaction, it’s natural.
It’s not natural to threaten to rape your girlfriend and beat her up

 

[golden_blunder]

In fairness, what MrParker suggested in terms of social media reaction, had Cantona committed that transgression in the modern day is not unreasonable. I listened to a BBC Radio show back in 2015 that recounted the event that night at Selhurst Park, 20 years prior.

They had the former Crystal Palace manager Alan Smith (manager that night), Richard Shaw (the player that Cantona kicked out at to get sent off the bodyguard of Eric Cantona) , who would escort to the various hearings and Jon Champion the commentator for BBC Radio 5 live that night.

The latter said himself that even Sir Alex Ferguson, "who was a staunch protector of his players" would have found it difficult to have fought against the wave of social media opinion had that occurred now. We know Ferguson could defend against traditional forms of media such as the press, but when you thousands if not millions posting their views online you would have to be strong against that tide of opinion. That is not to say that Ferguson could not have done it, but there is a different landscape of opinion to deal with.

Amongst those millions, you have so called celebrities sticking their oars in, in order to attract an online presence and please their "followers".

I think you have jumped down the original posters throat there.

It’s the 2nd or 3rd poster in the last couple of weeks to reference Cantona as some sort of point against social media or as a “but you cheered Cantona after..” point.

even if it had been today the media reaction would be strong yes but not as much as women’s groups etc against rape. No chance

 

[Spark]

I'm just sticking to football here. Pre-case Greenwood would be an upgrade over Hojlund. And I am not someone who thinks he's a generational talent.

Hope he does well at getafe so we don't have to splash the cash on another striker in the summer. We don't have the funds.

Surely no one thinks pre-case Greenwood would be worse than Hojlund?

I’m confident that he’d be one of our leading scorers this season based primarily on the fact that he can finish.

 

[MrParker]

Where is the false equivalency? He gave multiple, very similar examples.

They're just being captious to discredit views which they don't agree with. It's pretty clear what my view is and I don't need to justify it to people who wish to nit pick to try and delegitimize others they disagree with - it's strawman arguing about something completely different to what I said and attempting to imply I made an equivalence between Greenwoods alleged crime and Cantonas crime simply because his name appeared in the post.

I think it's helped display that there isn't a coorelation between having morals and wanting Greenwood locked in the tower of london to rot. One of the most vocal posters seems to be a supporter of using violence against people who push you. I hope said poster never gets pushed too far by a woman.

 

[Redlambs]

One of the most vocal posters seems to be a supporter of using violence against people who push you. I hope said poster never gets pushed too far by a woman.

There you really are.

 

[golden_blunder]

They're just being captious to discredit views which they don't agree with. It's pretty clear what my view is and I don't need to justify it to people who wish to nit pick to try and delegitimize others they disagree with - it's strawman arguing about something completely different to what I said and attempting to imply I made an equivalence between Greenwoods alleged crime and Cantonas crime simply because his name appeared in the post.

I think it's helped display that there isn't a coorelation between having morals and wanting Greenwood locked in the tower of london to rot. One of the most vocal posters seems to be a supporter of using violence against people who push you. I hope said poster never gets pushed too far by a woman.

Well don’t mention him in the same breath. He’s not relevant to the topic.

perhaps I need to say it again. Cantona’s reaction to provocation was a reaction that any one of us might come to if the fan hits the right note. Of course being a professional sportsman you’d expect him not to react but I can understand why he did it. That does not mean that I welcome violence as you are insinuating.

greenwood, it’s not natural to behave like that and nor can I understand it.

there is a world of difference

I’ll ignore the jibe about me potentially hitting women. That’s your friendly warning.

 

[Posh Red]

The pro-greenwood posters seem to keep sinking lower and lower

 

[P-Nut]

I don't want Greenwood back at all, I've had quite a few arguments with friends over why I don't want him back.

However, the posters ignoring half of a post to focus on one sentence is baffling.

I don't personally believe in rehabilitating rapist and pedophiles, but that is obviously what the poster is referencing rather than making any argument that we bring Greenwood back.

As for should Greenwood come back being the only question, who decided that? Some people will be interested in how he gets on elsewhere, some will want him completely out of the game, some will not be arsed about him.

It is a discussion forum after all, if you aren't interested in a topic a person is talking about why not just ignore it and not reply?

 

[SilentWitness]

I don't want Greenwood back at all, I've had quite a few arguments with friends over why I don't want him back.

However, the posters ignoring half of a post to focus on one sentence is baffling.

I don't personally believe in rehabilitating rapist and pedophiles, but that is obviously what the poster is referencing rather than making any argument that we bring Greenwood back.

As for should Greenwood come back being the only question, who decided that? Some people will be interested in how he gets on elsewhere, some will want him completely out of the game, some will not be arsed about him.

It is a discussion forum after all, if you aren't interested in a topic a person is talking about why not just ignore it and not reply?

Perhaps it would make sense then to make comparisons with players or people who have had similar charges/allegations and then went through rehabilitation rather than the people that have made silly comparisons to Cantona/Beckham etc., as contextually, the incidents and subsequent reactions to it and any forms of rehab will and have been, completely different in terms of the merit and form of them.

 

[Red00012]

Comparing Greenwood to Cantona is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on this forum..

I’m Pretty sure he was compared to Mike Tyson also. I think that’s the winner

 

[MrParker]

Well don’t mention him in the same breath. He’s not relevant to the topic.

perhaps I need to say it again. Cantona’s reaction to provocation was a reaction that any one of us might come to if the fan hits the right note. Of course being a professional sportsman you’d expect him not to react but I can understand why he did it. That does not mean that I welcome violence as you are insinuating.

greenwood, it’s not natural to behave like that and nor can I understand it.

there is a world of difference

I’ll ignore the jibe about me potentially hitting women. That’s your friendly warning.

Golden_Blunder there is no equivalence between what Adam Johnson did and what Mason Greenwood was accused of either. You have been captious in your responses to myself and others with whom you disagree - I would appreciate if a moderator who isn't emotionally invested in the subject and has impartial views on it would review the content as I feel you're being incredibly unfair- on what I thought was a fair and respectful post (and many others could see this too). I'm entitled to an opinion and you're entitled to disagree with it too but to try and imply I made false inequivalences- between Greenwood and Cantona, which I didn't isn't being genuine. There are a group of very active posters in this thread who all share the same view which seem to want to gang up on anyone who doesn't share their opinion and discredit them - that is not genuine and incredibly unfair in my opinion. It's no surprise to see the most active people all share the same view when anyone who says otherwise has to fight against a smear campaign where their posts are taken out of context.

I don't wish to discuss Cantona anymore as the subject isn't about Cantona and there was never any equivalence drawn by myself between the crimes. Just like there was no equivalence drawn between the crimes of Adam Johnson and Mason Greenwoods alleged crimes by myself either.

I made a fair, rationale and honest post expressing my views, some of which I noted would be unpopular but they're my beliefs and what I stand behind - it certainly wasn't ingenuine or an attempt to draw false equivalences which some have tried to imply. I have strong feelings on rehabilitation of all criminals and it's something I feel passionate about and that includes those convicted of crimes against children too which I shared. I know this is a deeply unpopular view to hold but I'm being honest and I've tried to explain why I hold those views as best I can. I don't expect many to agree but it is upsetting for some to imply I'm not genuine because Eric Cantona's name appeared. I couldn't be more honest and genuine if I tried.

I apologise for my reaction to you and others but I feel I have been ganged up on here and had my views taken out of context and as a result of that I've had to go on the defensive. There was a post by another poster a few days ago stating something along the lines of "I can understand why some never want him to play for the club again as that comes from a morale place" and that post stuck with me when I read it but I only had time to respond with my views yesterday. I find that deeply offensive as it implies that anyone who supports the return to the workplace of people accused or who have committed crimes don't have morals. Others have suggested that wanting a player to return to a pitch are domestic violence apologists too which again is deeply unfair. Being a supporter of rehabilitation and reintegration of criminals does not mean you don't have morals or that you support the crimes they committed or make excuses for the crimes they committed. It is possible to both support rehab/reintegration and also be opposed to the crimes committed.

The comment about supporting violence if "pushed" was a low blow by me and I honestly do apologise for that. I hope you can now see though how others in the "greenwood should rot" camp make other posters feel when they accuse them of being domestic violence apologists too - it's not nice and I hope moving forward the same standards are applied to those too.

Again I apologize unreservedly for any offense caused to yourself and admit I acted out of frustration after feeling I was being ganged up on. It was annoying to see what I thought was a challenging post to articulate which took me great time to compose be completely ignored by others being, what I feel to be captious and focusing on one small aspect of it to try and, what I believe, was an attempt to discredit me. Maybe I've read the room wrong and picked you up incorrectly on that but not at any stage did I draw any equivalence between Greenwoods alleged crimes and Cantonas crimes and I feel this then took the thread off topic and the bulk of my reasonable post then went completely ignored.

We can agree to disagree on this - I've already stated that I expect my views are deeply unpopular and I'm not trying to convince anyone in to my way of thinking but I do have an entitlement to share them. If my character is being attacked or if my views are being taken out of context then I also have an entitlement to correct that too.

Once again sorry for any offence caused to you and others for my reaction but I felt I was being unfairly attacked.

 

[Spark]

I’m Pretty sure he was compared to Mike Tyson also. I think that’s the winner

Have we had OJ yet?

 

[golden_blunder]

Perhaps it would make sense then to make comparisons with players or people who have had similar charges/allegations and then went through rehabilitation rather than the people that have made silly comparisons to Cantona/Beckham etc., as contextually, the incidents and subsequent reactions to it and any forms of rehab will and have been, completely different in terms of the merit and form of them.

Exactly

 

[golden_blunder]

Golden_Blunder there is no equivalence between what Adam Johnson did and what Mason Greenwood was accused of either. You have been captious in your responses to myself and others with whom you disagree - I would appreciate if a moderator who isn't emotionally invested in the subject and has impartial views on it would review the content as I feel you're being incredibly unfair- on what I thought was a fair and respectful post (and many others could see this too). I'm entitled to an opinion and you're entitled to disagree with it too but to try and imply I made false inequivalences- between Greenwood and Cantona, which I didn't isn't being genuine. There are a group of very active posters in this thread who all share the same view which seem to want to gang up on anyone who doesn't share their opinion and discredit them - that is not genuine and incredibly unfair in my opinion. It's no surprise to see the most active people all share the same view when anyone who says otherwise has to fight against a smear campaign where their posts are taken out of context.

I don't wish to discuss Cantona anymore as the subject isn't about Cantona and there was never any equivalence drawn by myself between the crimes. Just like there was no equivalence drawn between the crimes of Adam Johnson and Mason Greenwoods alleged crimes by myself either.

I made a fair, rationale and honest post expressing my views, some of which I noted would be unpopular but they're my beliefs and what I stand behind - it certainly wasn't ingenuine or an attempt to draw false equivalences which some have tried to imply. I have strong feelings on rehabilitation of all criminals and it's something I feel passionate about and that includes those convicted of crimes against children too which I shared. I know this is a deeply unpopular view to hold but I'm being honest and I've tried to explain why I hold those views as best I can. I don't expect many to agree but it is upsetting for some to imply I'm not genuine because Eric Cantona's name appeared. I couldn't be more honest and genuine if I tried.

I apologise for my reaction to you and others but I feel I have been ganged up on here and had my views taken out of context and as a result of that I've had to go on the defensive. There was a post by another poster a few days ago stating something along the lines of "I can understand why some never want him to play for the club again as that comes from a morale place" and that post stuck with me when I read it but I only had time to respond with my views yesterday. I find that deeply offensive as it implies that anyone who supports the return to the workplace of people accused or who have committed crimes don't have morals. Others have suggested that wanting a player to return to a pitch are domestic violence apologists too which again is deeply unfair. Being a supporter of rehabilitation and reintegration of criminals does not mean you don't have morals or that you support the crimes they committed or make excuses for the crimes they committed. It is possible to both support rehab/reintegration and also be opposed to the crimes committed.

The comment about supporting violence if "pushed" was a low blow by me and I honestly do apologise for that. I hope you can now see though how others in the "greenwood should rot" camp make other posters feel when they accuse them of being domestic violence apologists too - it's not nice and I hope moving forward the same standards are applied to those too.

Again I apologize unreservedly for any offense caused to yourself and admit I acted out of frustration after feeling I was being ganged up on. It was annoying to see what I thought was a challenging post to articulate which took me great time to compose be completely ignored by others being, what I feel to be captious and focusing on one small aspect of it to try and, what I believe, was an attempt to discredit me. Maybe I've read the room wrong and picked you up incorrectly on that but not at any stage did I draw any equivalence between Greenwoods alleged crimes and Cantonas crimes and I feel this then took the thread off topic and the bulk of my reasonable post then went completely ignored.

We can agree to disagree on this - I've already stated that I expect my views are deeply unpopular and I'm not trying to convince anyone in to my way of thinking but I do have an entitlement to share them. If my character is being attacked or if my views are being taken out of context then I also have an entitlement to correct that too.

Once again sorry for any offence caused to you and others for my reaction but I felt I was being unfairly attacked.

I accept your apology - thank you.

the only reason I brought up the Cantona aspect in the first place was because there has been a fair bit of insane comparisons in this thread to the cases of Cantona, Beckham, boxers basketball players and so on. I wasn’t trying to gang up on you individually but on posts that bring these names in, they’re irrelevant to the MG case.

we will agree to disagree. I personally believe that in many DV cases a leopard does not change its spots and sadly I don’t think it’s the last we will hear about that couple. My personal opinion is that they are best far away from this club where there is less stress and intense focus on their relationship

 

[Redlambs]

The problem is this stuff has all been said and done before, and it's easy to see where it's going to go @MrParker

Whining about being "ganged up on", hyperbole about "towers of London" and acting like people are hypocrites over Cantona and all sorts. Even the "oh this will be unpopular because I'm asking for forgiveness" stuff is incredibly simplistic. And all been done before over and over.

You aren't "being attacked" or silenced or whatever else you want to use to justify what you insinuated about GB. That shows a nastiness under the surface because the debate wasn't going your way.

Fair play that you apologised and GB accepted that, but I will say that's the biggest problem with your posts, you insinuate a lot. People are always going to push back when you do that.

 

[MackRobinson]

Did I say offensive?

It wasn't about answering a question of my choice. It is THE question. The rest is nothing to do with it and merely muddies the water intentionally or unintentionally. People who did what Greenwood did don't deserve a free pass and that is exactly what muddying the water does.

Rehabilitation for criminals after prison and a United footballer who assaulted a racist fan are totally irrelevant. They not only don't add anything to the discussion but they actively confuse the matter. But "he wasn't convicted" is also a terrible and irrelevant argument as we aren't discussing if he will be convicted of a crime as he wasn't, something we have known for a long time, yet people still keep bringing it up. You don't need to be convicted of a crime before having your character assessed based on your actions. Ryan Giggs hasn't been convicted of anything but would anyone trust or want such a person, with such significant ethical and moral failings, to represent the club again? I know I wouldn't. And he didn't threaten to rape anyone.

This is actually a strawman because he never said this. It was a tangential opinion based on the hypothetical that Mason was convicted. While the Cantona example was poor I still don't understand the issue with the rest of his post.

 

[Preggy99]

Bring him back, we need him big time. Greenwood on the right and Garnashers on the left would be a menace for any team having to defend them. Both can go either way as well, massive weapons to have on the wings.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

I haven't been following him, mainly because I've little interest and do not want him back.

But looking at his stats, he has hardly been pulling up trees and surely has not done enough to warrant debating a return. Thankfully.

 

[Wibble]

This is actually a strawman because he never said this. It was a tangential opinion based on the hypothetical that Mason was convicted. While the Cantona example was poor I still don't understand the issue with the rest of his post.

Mason wasn't convicted. So any hypothetical based on him being so is plainly irrelevant and an obvious strawman/false equivalency based argument.

 

[Nep77]

There are a group of very active posters in this thread who all share the same view which seem to want to gang up on anyone who doesn't share their opinion and discredit them - that is not genuine and incredibly unfair in my opinion.

As an observer reading the thread and not involved in the discussion, This is so true.

 

[Wibble]

I hope said poster never gets pushed too far by a woman.

Kinell. That is one of the worst posts I have seen on here.

 

[Redlambs]

As an observer reading the thread and not involved in the discussion, This is so true.

What is it with you guys, are you new to discussion forums or something?

There are thousands of people on here, you are going to get many replies. Crying about "ganging up" just because more disagreed than agree is childish.

Besides the poster who initiated this latest debate has been the most nasty about it too with regards to how he treated another poster, so I won't weep too much.

 

[Redlambs]

Kinell. That is one of the worst posts I have seen on here.

He's very lucky GB didn't pull the trigger himself. Would have been justified. But fair play he accepted that apology and all it's "buts".

Which makes all the whining about "being attacked" even more childish nonsense.

 

[Wibble]

He's very lucky GB didn't pull the trigger himself. Would have been justified. But fair play he accepted that apology and all it's "buts".

Which makes all the whining about "being attacked" even more childish nonsense.

Only a 5pt QC warning for now. Subject to modmin review re. a perm

The wall of text non-apolgy apology doesn't work for me F.W.I.W.

 

[MackRobinson]

Mason wasn't convicted. So any hypothetical based on him being so is plainly irrelevant and an obvious strawman/false equivalency based argument.

It's simply a tangential conversation on a thread. However, this is going nowhere so agree to disagree.

 

[Wibble]

It's simply a tangential conversation on a thread.

No. It really isn't.

 

[Fridge chutney]

One of the most vocal posters seems to be a supporter of using violence against people who push you.

A bit hypocritical to accuse others of putting words in your mouth when you write stuff like this, isn't it?

I hope said poster never gets pushed too far by a woman.

Absolutely shocking thing to write on a thread where domestic violence is a central topic.

 

[redcucumber]

So this thread is effectively just a shit flinging fest. Excellent

 

[Fridge chutney]

For those who care, i think it was @NotThatSoph who adeptly described why many will reject the Greenwood and Cantona comparisons several pages back. It comes down to context, why it is necessary, and why the lack of context when analysing how the situations were handled and "fan reactions" tends to create disingenuous and unhelpful false equivalences.

 

[Belisarius]

So this thread is effectively just a shit flinging fest. Excellent

Amen. If the awful decision to combine the two Greenwood threads isn't going to be reversed. Would it be possible to have a feature to put posters on ignore for this thread only?

Then those of us who just want to get information on how his loan at Getafe is going don't have to read all the repetitious drivel over and over but also don't have to ignore people who may have something interesting to say in other threads.

 

[MackRobinson]

Amen. If the awful decision to combine the two Greenwood threads isn't going to be reversed. Would it be possible to have a feature to put posters on ignore for this thread only?

Then those of us who just want to get information on how his loan at Getafe is going don't have to read all the repetitious drivel over and over but also don't have to ignore people who may have something interesting to say in other threads.

It was most likely done on purpose to ensure any positive talk about his play was shouted down by reminders of what he was accused of. The resulting thread is as desired.

 

[Fridge chutney]

It was most likely done on purpose to ensure any positive talk about his play was shouted down by reminders of what he was accused of. The resulting thread is as desired.

The powers that be have explained many times why the threads were merged. And your explanation is not it.

 

[Redlambs]

It was most likely done on purpose to ensure any positive talk about his play was shouted down by reminders of what he was accused of. The resulting thread is as desired.

Christ almighty, want some sauce for that chip?

Whilst I personally don't agree with the merge myself, if the guys who wanted that thread opened help report the many posts going off topic the whole time in the bubble then maybe it would be different.

The powers that be have explained many times why the threads were merged. And your explanation is not it.

You'd think half these posters were scousers the way they see themselves as victimised

 

[Thiagoal]

It was most likely done on purpose to ensure any positive talk about his play was shouted down by reminders of what he was accused of. The resulting thread is as desired.

Totally agree. I was interested in his footballing rehabilitation and the glimpses of his world class potential we were seeing. This thread is total garbage and seems to be what was intended by the mods