https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/reporter-world-cup-lgbtq-shirt-28549578
A CBS reporter was prevented from entering a stadium in Quatar because he was wearing a shirt that expressed support for the LGBTQXYZPDQ agenda. This event raises some questions regarding the left wing narrative, and assertions about morality.
1. Given that news reporters are supposed to be neutral observers of events and to report on those events, why was this repporter choosing to insert himself into the event and the controversy?
2. Are T-Shirts with political/agenda logos really appropriate for journalists when they are actually working?
3. Clearly Quatar finds homosexuality to be out of line with their moral code, as well as their legal code. Does this mean that they are objectively correct in finding homosexuality to be immoral, and using their sacred text to do so?
4. Why would FIFA choose to honor a country that engages in this sort of discrimination with a World Cup, and why would countries that object to this sort of discrimination participate?
5. Is it appropriate for reporters to engage in protests as a part of their reportorial duties?
28 comments:
Craig...
why was this reporter choosing to insert himself into the event and the controversy?
Are T-Shirts with political/agenda logos really appropriate for journalists when they are actually working?
Reporters are allowed political opinions. They should not insert themselves into PARTISAN POLITICS but reporters have always been able to be clear they support human rights.
A soccer ball with a rainbow around it (what was on his shirt) is not a political message. It's support for human rights, which ought not be considered a political message.
There's a difference between stands for human rights and political messages.
That some politicians and religions disapprove of human rights for some groups of people does not oblige reporters to hide support for human rights.
Craig...
Does this mean that they are objectively correct in finding homosexuality to be immoral, and using their sacred text to do so?
No, of course not. Do you think so?
I haven't said he should be denied the ability to support whatever causes he chooses. What I did ask, is whether it's appropriate for him to do so while he's representing his employer. FYI, when he's in a country where they've decided that they don't hold your/his views on homosexuality, and have codified that stance in both law and morality, then it's a political statement. Given the nature of sharia law, it could be a religious statement as well.
"No, of course not."
By what objective standard, do you support this objective claim?
"Do you think so?
I personally don't agree with their choice to do so, but it's their country, their moral code, their religion, by what standard do I have the ability to tell them that they're moral code/legal code/religion is objectively wrong?
If there is no objective standard, then it's simply based on some subjective standard, which is not objective and shouldn't be treated as such.
"That some politicians and religions disapprove of human rights for some groups of people does not oblige reporters to hide support for human rights."
Are you limiting your approval of reporters making political/protest/religious statements while on the clock only to "human rights" however you choose to define them/
First, I am in complete agreement with Qatar on this issue, as of course anyone with any grasp of morality would.
Second, acknowledging the immorality of behaviors compelled by disorder or simple selfish desire for sexual self-gratification, is not an assault on human rights, but a defense of moral decency.
Third, there is no defense for any projection of personal opinion by those for whom strict objectivity is essential. As Craig more than seems to suggest, a journalist should be as nondescript as possible in their appearance, with the possibly exception of some indication one is a member of the press. Those who see them should have no distinct way of determining how journalists feel about anything. THAT is how a good journalist should be present him/herself. But Dan's too keen on promoting perversion as "human rights" because he's morally bankrupt and a fake Christian.
Craig...
"By what objective standard, do you support this objective claim?"
We've covered this repeatedly. By the reality that there is NO OBJECTIVE DATA that's been provided to authoritatively prove it.
Do you have objectively provable support for this? Do you think there exists objectively provable data to support these human rights abuses? If so, present it. You don't. No one does.
At such time that someone presents objectively provable data to support the claim, I'll believe it. Until then, this is just another "there are unicorns living on the moon" sort of claim. What else can I do?
Craig...
"If there is no objective standard, then it's simply based on some subjective standard, which is not objective and shouldn't be treated as such."
As you well know by now, there is no objectively provable moral system available, so that's a moot point.
So, none of us have an objectively provable moral system, but there are more and less morally reasonable positions to take and, in the case of human rights abuses, there are some positions we should take a stand on, even though we can't objectively prove it.
Standing against rape, slavery and oppression of LGBTQ folks are some of the basic human rights issues we must insist upon. Do you disagree?
And in nations where we have no vote on their laws and they want to make such oppressive activities legal, we still must and should apply pressure. This reporter is showing one small way to do so.
Are you thinking he was wrong to take that stand against oppression?
Craig...
"Are you limiting your approval of reporters making political/protest/religious statements while on the clock only to "human rights" however you choose to define them..."
I just mean human rights as the majority of humanity understands them. The right of free speech, the right to not be enslaved, the right of life and self-determination. You know, human rights.
It's not really a secret or mystery or hard to understand, you know?
https://thehaguepeace.org/site/what-are-the-30-human-rights/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAg_KbBhDLARIsANx7wAzUOf8-tqlW_353b93-dsGEWfXty4GicItA28VRs4tvpSYsOpFdpN0aAsyTEALw_wcB
And yes, I think reporters and a good people have both the right and obligation to speak up for human rights. Like, when the Nazis denied the full humanity of black people, Jews and gay folk, that did not mean that US and other world citizens were obliged to remain quiet about it, right? Reporters rightly condemned that sort of oppression because it was a matter of human rights.
So, while reporters ought not be protesting partisan opinions on policy., that ends at human rights abuses.
Do you disagree?
Sorry. That last was from me.
Craig...
"I personally don't agree with their choice to do so, but it's their country, their moral code, their religion, by what standard do I have the ability to tell them that they're moral code/legal code/religion is objectively wrong?"
!!??
If you were visiting a nation that allowed child rape, you would remain quiet, just because you have no objectively provable moral system??
Not me. I join the rest of the civilized world in condemning child rape. And other human rights abuses.
On what basis, you ask? On the basis that human rights are universal and oppression is wrong which we can REASONABLY evaluate using our God-given (or innate, for non-believers) moral reasoning.
But you probably agree that we should speak out against child rape, even though you personally have no provable moral system.
I think you think you're scoring points with this vague amorality you hint at. But you're not.
Since we always want to hear what black voices have to say, I'll offer this.
"Leftists: "All cultures are equal! We respect all cultures!"
"Also Leftists: "Why won't Quatar allow us to parade our LGBTQ values in their culture at the World Cup!?"
Samuel Sey
Art,
I would say that I am in complete agreement with the ability of a sovereign nation to enact whatever laws they choose, based on whatever moral code they ascribe to. Having said that, I'm not sure I agree that jail or execution for homosexuals is appropriate. But, it's they're country, their culture, their theocracy, who are we to tell them they are wrong?
"We've covered this repeatedly. By the reality that there is NO OBJECTIVE DATA that's been provided to authoritatively prove it."
Yes we have. Unfortunately you keep making objective statements about the morality of others, and I'd like an answer to the question as asked. A simple, direct, unequivocal answer would be best. From the above, it seems as though you are acknowledging that you have absolutely zero grounds to make objective statements about the morality of others choices. If this is the case, then we're done.
"Do you have objectively provable support for this?"
No, I don't have objective data to support your claims.
"Do you think there exists objectively provable data to support these human rights abuses?"
No, I've never made any claims about human rights abuses, why would you demand that I support claims I haven't made?
"What else can I do?"
You could stop making objective claims about things, that would solve the problem.
"Standing against rape, slavery and oppression of LGBTQ folks are some of the basic human rights issues we must insist upon. Do you disagree?"
No.
"Are you thinking he was wrong to take that stand against oppression?"
No, I'm asking if it's appropriate for working journalists to insert themselves into a story, and to engage in any acts of personal protest, while engaged in their jobs. Aren't journalists supposed to be professionally neutral?
I don't know what you learned in JUCO, but in my Intro to Journalism class in my freshman year, I learned that journalists are supposed to be professionally neutral, and are supposed to report the story, not create the story.
"It's not really a secret or mystery or hard to understand, you know?"
Apparently it is, since you didn't actually answer the question as asked.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes. I'll stick with journalism 101 where I learned that journalists report the news, they don't make the news. In this case this journalist could have reported on the story (Muslim nations don't like gay folx), without making himself the story.
Of course, anyone with half a brain knows how Islam feels about homosexuality, and how Muslim nations that adhere to Sharia treat homosexuals.
I guess the whole question of why FIFA chose to bless Qatar with this monetary and public relations windfall, isn't important. I guess asking why countries that don't agree with Qatari law chose to send national teams to Qatar, isn't as good of a story as a Journalist doing something to provoke a reaction and making himself look good.
"If you were visiting a nation that allowed child rape, you would remain quiet, just because you have no objectively provable moral system??"
1. I can't imagine why I would visit a country that did so.
2. If I was forced to, I would not keep my subjective opinions to myself.
3. If I was forced to, I would not provoke a reaction while I was doing my job.
4. Unless, I was there in order to specifically engage in civil disobedience, and was prepared to face the legal consequences for my actions.
5. Unless I was there to rescue the victims of child rape.
6. What I wouldn't do is make objective claims about a behavior with nothing to support my objective claims.
"On what basis, you ask?"
No, I didn't ask that. I asked what basis supports you making objective claims about the morality/immorality of certain behaviors.
Look at my words. I have not claimed my moral views are objectively provable. You keep repeating false, unsupported claims. This is rationally wrong.
Do you disagree with my actual position that human rights abuses are REASONABLY immoral, even if you personally can't prove it objectively?
I'm surprised and saddened that if you were a reporter, you would not are a stand against human rights abuses.
Human rights defense is not a political stand to take. That's what I learned in journalism school. And in Sunday School. I'm saddened you haven't learned the same.
"I join the rest of the civilized world in condemning child rape."
Says the guy who supports pervert men dressed as tramps and whores twerking in front of little kids.
Of course, this post isn't about "child rape". It's about a country's righteous opposition to the perversion of homosexuality. Dan's all about perversion.
"rape, slavery and oppression of LGBTQ folks"
One thing is not at all like the other two, but Dan wishes to regard opposition to perversion to be as bad as rape and slavery. Dan's all about perversion.
"Look at my words. I have not claimed my moral views are objectively provable."
I have been. You keep making claims where you say that "X is immoral", or "Y is moral", which is objective claims. You act is if morality is a binary. That something either is or is not "moral". The only possible way to get to these claims is if morality is objective and universal.
If you phrased your comments as "I believe that X is immoral" or "I believe that Y is moral", then we wouldn't have a problem.
Maybe, you should look at you words.
I've said before that you appear to want the benefits of an objective moral code, without the obligations and baggage of an objective moral code. Nothing you've said recently has convinced me otherwise.
"Do you disagree with my actual position that human rights abuses are REASONABLY immoral, even if you personally can't prove it objectively?"
How could I possibly agree or disagree with such a vague and undefined term?
Ambiguity is essential to Dan's positions. As regards LGBT issues, Dan is keen to regard all opposition as human rights abuses. This is typical of the left as this "stochastic terrorism" bears out. And again, from the beginning, honest people easily see how the fictitious rights claimed by the LGBT community can't help but be in conflict with the clearly enumerated Constitutional rights of every one else...freedom of religion, speech, associations, property, etc. Those human rights have no value where the fictitious LGBT rights are concerned.
As to objective moral codes and values, I submit two angles:
The first is this nice piece I found in researching the issue:
https://shenviapologetics.com/do-objective-moral-values-exist/#II
The second is how Dan's own words support the premise of both the link above, as well as the notion in general. Dan likes to cite verses referring to "God's Word written on their hearts". How does that not validate the position of an objective moral code, if God's Word is written on the hearts of those who don't know God? What's more, how does one not regard Scripture as the source of that code as an objective one when it's where Dan gets that notion? Would he ever say such a thing were it not for Scripture telling him?
And what's with the recent alterations of his on-line presence? Is there some serious problem in his personal life? I hope not.
REASONABLY IMMORAL. I don't know what you find vague about it.
HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES ARE REASONABLY IMMORAL.
RAPE IS REASONABLY IMMORAL.
SLAVERY IS REASONABLY IMMORAL.
CHILD ABUSE IS REASONABLY IMMORAL.
DO YOU DISAGREE?
Answer the damn questions.
"REASONABLY IMMORAL. I don't know what you find vague about it."
Ohhhhhhhh, now that you've restated something in ALL CAPS, it makes complete sense.
1. "REASONABLY" is a vague and subjective term, which you haven't defined. Nor have you provided a standard by which to judge the "REASONABLEness" os something.
2. The existence of societies containing millions/billions of people who wouldn't agree with your hunches seems to pose a problem. You seem to be saying that these societies have reached conclusions that are not "REASONABLE" on these subjects. By what standard do you tell an entire society of millions/billions of people that their views are not "REASONABLE"?
"DO YOU DISAGREE?"
No, I agree that you find those things to be "reasonably immoral" according you your subjective, imperfect, limited, moral guidelines. I disagree that you have any grounding to apply your hunches to other societies who have reached different conclusions.
"Answer the damn questions."
Once agian, I've answered. Yet you leave a string of unanswered questions in your wake.
Art,
I agree that it seems reasonable to conclude that Dan tends to value ambiguity in his positions. He seems to want to commit to as little specificity as possible.
In the case of morality, Dan has seemed to have no problem declaring X, Y, or Z to be "immoral" or "moral". Yet do do so is to make an objective claim. "X is moral.", is an objective claim. Yet, there is no possible way to ground an objective claim, in a subjective standard. What we've just seen is him introducing that term "REASONABLY moral", which makes the claims about morality subjective (as REASONABLE is not an objective term), but all that does is undercuts any ability on his part to label others or their action as "immoral". For example, it is abundantly clear that there are currently societies that represent millions/billions of people who don't find slavery to be immoral. Hell, China wouldn't be able to compete economically without slave labor, so they must find it moral. I think Dan's problem is that he wants to benefits of an objective moral code (the ability to label others "immoral", and the sense of superiority that comes with that), while not wanting the baggage (some external agent with the ability to impose an objective moral code) of an objective moral code.
"The second is how Dan's own words support the premise of both the link above, as well as the notion in general. Dan likes to cite verses referring to "God's Word written on their hearts". How does that not validate the position of an objective moral code, if God's Word is written on the hearts of those who don't know God?"
This is an excellent question, that I would love an answer to. Because "God's Word", would seem to suggest that "God" does have an objective moral law, and that every single human has that written on their hearts. If that is True, then wouldn't breaking that moral law, carry consequences? How does one deal with someone who claims that "God's word written on my heart." contradicts God's written revelation? Or contradicts what Dan considers REASONABLE?
I'd suspect that Dan would place ultimate authority on the individual and their ability to correctly interpret what "God has written on their hearts.", and to suggest that people who are mistaken in their interpretation are not held responsible for what "God wrote on their hearts".
"What's more, how does one not regard Scripture as the source of that code as an objective one when it's where Dan gets that notion? Would he ever say such a thing were it not for Scripture telling him?"
Again, two excellent questions that will likely never be answered in an unequivocal, clear, direct manner.
"And what's with the recent alterations of his on-line presence? Is there some serious problem in his personal life? I hope not."
No idea.
I've seen a trend of left wing bloggers who have, at some point, significantly altered or removed as much of their online trail as possible. But, who knows.
He has responded to my post asking the question about those alterations. It may be no more than a technical glitch. I was concerned there may be some really serious personal issue, but fortunately at this point it seems that's not the case. He's a true horse's ass, but I would hate to hear he's met with some tragic situation.
Craig...
"I've seen a trend of left wing bloggers who have, at some point, significantly altered or removed as much of their online trail as possible"
Bullshit. The hell, you have.
You all live in such a small, conspiratorial world where you whisper vague accusations like this against good people whose sole crime is daring to disagree with you. What does this even mean..? "Removed their online trail..."??
I've always been exceedingly transparent about who I am, using my whole real name, being clear about where I live, go to church, grew up, where I work... there are no secrets with me and I don't even know what Marshal is talking about. The only change I know of is I've found myself unable to post comments under my blogger account when I'm on my phone. But then, I've been clear about that, too.
The point was YOU made a claim that you've "seen a trend of left wing bloggers" who've hidden their online trail. As if that were something unique to left wing/liberal people and you did so with NO evidence. Just another empty claim with no support.
That's become so sadly typical in Trump's conservative world.
And the difference between when I say that LGBTQ people report being harmed by conservative people and when you say that "left wing bloggers" are hiding who they are is that it's common knowledge that LGBTQ folks have been harmed by conservatives and conservative policy. It's just no secret. Listen to what they say.
On the other hand, claims of liberals supposedly having a trend of hiding what they've said online is not anything that's commonly known. It sounds like an outsider and conspiratorial claim. Not that I'm saying it doesn't happen. I'm sure people of all political bents have hidden who they are out of concern of harming their careers, etc ("Marshal Art," anyone?) but nothing like a trend specifically amongst liberals.
And I didn't say you were talking about me. I was using myself as an example and because of Marshal's vague "concern" that something had changed in my specific online presence which prompted YOUR comment alleging a "trend" you have "seen."
"The point was YOU made a claim that you've "seen a trend of left wing bloggers" who've hidden their online trail. As if that were something unique to left wing/liberal people and you did so with NO evidence. Just another empty claim with no support."
So close, yet so far.
You're right, that I did say that in my personal lived experience I have seen leftist bloggers go to extremes to erase their digital trails. I said it because that statement accurately reflects my actual lived experience. I also said it in the context of Art's questions about you. What I DID NOT claim, was that I was extrapolating my personal lived experience to anyone else. I WAS NOT claiming to speak for every single person who's ever tried to eliminate their digital trail, because my lived experience doesn't extend that far.
Your problem is that you take what I actually said, then extrapolate from that to make up some shit that is more a product of your biases, prejudices, political leanings, and imagination, than of anything I actually said. It's like you have to make up motivations that don't exist for some strange reason.
Blame Trump, check.
Make up connections that don't actually exist anywhere but your mind, check.
Present liberals as blameless, and conservatives as evil, check.
Just more of the same bullshit.
"As if that were something unique to left wing/liberal people..."
Not a point I ever thought to follow or investigate, but I'm only aware of one or two conservatives who deleted their FB accounts because they no longer wished to wallow in the political stuff they encountered there. I doubt too many do it for any other reasons, such as the hiding lefties do because they've been exposed. That's my impression of the situation, not a statement of fact I intend to try to prove.
Art,
Don't get me wrong, if people want to remove themselves from the cesspool of much of this kind of interaction, I don't blame them.
I'm talking about some specific people who had a history of some crazy, extreme, left wing theological and political positions who scrubbed everything the minute they graduated and started looking for jobs. I've never said it was all one sided, only that my experience shows leftists who've done it.
Post a Comment