The John Terry Moral Reasoning Thread

[matedog]

Have it Terry, you fucking scumbag.

I hope the arrogant twat is banned for a long, long time. We also might do well in the Euros next year with one less lumbering has-been.

What happened between now and two months ago.

[Heston]

Have it Terry, you fucking scumbag.

I hope the arrogant twat is banned for a long, long time. We also might do well in the Euros next year with one less lumbering has-been.

What happened between now and two months ago.

It's been confirmed he's about to be charged with racially aggravated public order.

[matedog]

Have it Terry, you fucking scumbag.

I hope the arrogant twat is banned for a long, long time. We also might do well in the Euros next year with one less lumbering has-been.

What happened between now and two months ago.

It's been confirmed he's about to be charged with racially aggravated public order.

What he said was okay though because a Saudi prince leered at his wife before the game.

[Dr. Medulla]

Have it Terry, you fucking scumbag.

I hope the arrogant twat is banned for a long, long time. We also might do well in the Euros next year with one less lumbering has-been.

What happened between now and two months ago.

It's been confirmed he's about to be charged with racially aggravated public order.

What he said was okay though because a Saudi prince leered at his wife before the game.

Sounds like that prince would be a lousy teammate.

[tosh]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -baby.html

[101Walterton]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -baby.html

Yeah right what a coincidense

[Dr. Medulla]

I'm in the Ottawa airport right now and two young guys just walked by, and I overheard one of them say, "John Terry is a racist." Worse, they didn't sound like Limeys.

[matedog]

I'm in the Ottawa airport right now and two young guys just walked by, and I overheard one of them say, "John Terry is a racist." Worse, they didn't sound like Limeys.

Was it chuck and kaleb?

[Inder]

I'm in the Ottawa airport right now and two young guys just walked by, and I overheard one of them say, "John Terry is a racist." Worse, they didn't sound like Limeys.

Was it chuck and kaleb?

I'd watch that movie.

[Dr. Medulla]

I'm in the Ottawa airport right now and two young guys just walked by, and I overheard one of them say, "John Terry is a racist." Worse, they didn't sound like Limeys.

Was it chuck and kaleb?

I'd watch that movie.

Only if there's lots of blood and Wolter dies in the end.

[Wolter]

I'm in the Ottawa airport right now and two young guys just walked by, and I overheard one of them say, "John Terry is a racist." Worse, they didn't sound like Limeys.

Was it chuck and kaleb?

I'd watch that movie.

Only if there's lots of blood and Wolter dies in the end.

I'm an annoying, wise-cracking guy with glasses. I die in the first reel.

[Marky Dread]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -baby.html

Yeah right what a coincidense

That baby isn't black he's square.

[Dr. Medulla]

Woo hoo, let's bump this thread because I hate starting new ones.

So last week during my class, as a bit of an aside related to the reading, I asked them whether historians have a social responsibility to their work. That is, are historians moral actors in their work. Not a single person said that historical argument should have a moral component. Not a one. In fact, I learned from those history majors who have to take a class on method that, indeed, that's how it's taught. All historians have biases, but these should be both put forward as a warning to the reader and the historian should make every effort to strive for objectivity and not to pass judgement because it's unfair to judge based on present values. In other words, we are to be amoral empiricists. I mentioned subjects like the Holocaust and slavery, which they conceded were complicated, but, no, historians do not judge, only report. I'd like to think that there's some confusion between objectivity and outright lying or skewing the evidence—i.e., subjectivity does not mean being unfair—but I think it's related to the fallacy that all opinions are equally valid, as if the quality of the evidence and analysis does not play a central role. And I suspect it's a misconception about the work of historians, that the past is just sitting around waiting for someone to unearth it and present it exactly as it was, as opposed to what historians actually do—they make an argument. That's it, just an argument. And it's only as truthful as it is persuasive through its use of evidence and analysis. That these students read their texts and research and write their papers thinking than they are somehow divorced from their social environment, and that they are necessarily passing judgement based on those influences, tells me that whoever is teaching them history—or teaching them period—is fucking well dropping the goddamned ball. I really really really want to teach that methodology course now.

[Rat Patrol]

You are a terrible person for bumping the (round) moral outrage thread, Chuckworm. :hmph:

[Dr. Medulla]

Bah. This thread had some value to it—eumaas was in fine form, as I recall—and, as I said, I'm too lazy/modest (it's a 95/5 split) to start a new one. I'm Frankensteining this fucker, giving it new life and letting it be killed by villagers.