Leicester City Youth Players

[Ebeneezer Goode]

But as has been said already, whether or not they understood or not doesn't necessarily determine whether there was a victim or not.

Which is nonsense, assuming we're still talking about the incident prior to the video being leaked.

 

[Nilsson]

Everybody in the video looked like they were having a jolly good time to me, good luck to them all.

 

[Son of Cod]

Which is nonsense, assuming we're still talking about the incident prior to the video being leaked.

Here's a hint. The video being leaked has NOTHING to do with this.

 

[Son of Cod]

Everybody in the video looked like they were having a jolly good time to me, good luck to them all.

I've always liked you.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Here's a hint. The video being leaked has NOTHING to do with this.

Yes it does. If the video hadn't been leaked then as far as we know no one would have been harmed in any way.

 

[silkyman]

Well from an ethical point of view I think it matters whether there was a victim or not quite a bit.

So if I'm sat in the pub with my white mates and start talking about 'niggers' and 'pakis', that's.... Ok? Somehow?

 

[silkyman]

Yes it does. If the video hadn't been leaked then as far as we know no one would have been harmed in any way.

Right... So if you do something wrong but never get found out, that's ok? Like scamming an altzheimer's sufferer or something?

 

[Son of Cod]

Yes it does. If the video hadn't been leaked then as far as we know no one would have been harmed in any way.

So as long as someone doesn't text their mate and said mate doesn't send it to The Daily Mirror, then nobody has been harmed because the people in the video probably don't speak English anyway?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Right... So if you do something wrong but never get found out, that's ok? Like scamming an altzheimer's sufferer or something?

It's got nothing to do with being found out, it's to do with an absence of harm. Watching that video and hearing what they say may make us feel uneasy, but that shouldn't stop us from engaging our brains and using a bit of logic. A victimless crime is no crime at all. What we saw can easily be explained by stupidity, ignorance and immaturity, and not the malice that would have been required had the women known what they were saying.

So as long as someone doesn't text their mate and said mate doesn't send it to The Daily Mirror, then nobody has been harmed because the people in the video probably don't speak English anyway?

If they did understand then that's completely different, whether the players knew they understood or not also changes the equation, but based on the assumption that they didn't, then no, I don't see how you can say that they're victims. I don't think you can be a victim without having been harmed. The harm only came after the video was released.

 

[silkyman]

So racism is ok as long as no one actually being slurred hears or understands it?

 

[JimJams]

So Eb, let's say you're in a coma for a few weeks, but come out of it ok at the end. Is it ok if I've been fingering your arsehole and shoving macaroons in there for safe keeping as long as I've removed them before you wake up?

 

[silkyman]

I'm off to the pub tomorrow to drink 15 pints and drive home past the local primary school at home time.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So Eb, let's say you're in a coma for a few weeks, but come out of it ok at the end. Is it ok if I've been fingering your arsehole and shoving macaroons in there for safe keeping as long as I've removed them before you wake up?

I never said anything they did was OK, only that it was victimless until the video was released. I don't think invading someone's body is really analogous to using words, but I will concede that "a victimless crime is no crime at all" was a crude and short-sighted rationale to use. Your hypothetical is victimless if you assume no possible harm, but you can't make assumptions like that in the real world when you craft ethical rules and laws. You can say that about hypotheticals and stuff that has already happened though, like this.

So racism is ok as long as no one actually being slurred hears or understands it?

If by racism you mean racist language, and if by 'OK' you mean moral, then no, it's not immoral, it's just fucking stupid.

 

[liu]

Can somebody tell me that, is there any difference between an westerner calling a Thai "slit eye" and a Thai calling another Thai "slit eye"?

 

[JimJams]

Eb I was just asking permission really.

 

[JimJams]

Can somebody tell me that, is there any difference between an westerner calling a Thai "slit eye" and a Thai calling another Thai "slit eye"?

Yeah, one just doesn't happen and the other one does.

On the subject specifically to the term used and Thai people, a lot of people in the country actually find it offensive purely because the term is used as a derogatory reference to Asians of many countries, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese etc. It sounds odd but offense is taken because it's a broad term rather than one specifically aimed at Thais. It's kind of like the slurs would have been less offensive had they been more personally specific to the Thai people.

 

[liu]

Just out of curiosity, does the term "hairy" sound offensive and racist to you guys?
We first used it to refer the Russians when they invaded northeast China many years ago. But some Chinese couldn't really tell the difference between Russians and other Europeans.

 

[Millersfan]

I don't think they should lose their careers over this, it was a victimless crime until someone stuck it on the net. They're young, they're stupid, so fine them hard, make them make a public apology, send them for some racial sensitivity training and be done with it.

Agreed.

 

[HertsWolf]

If you film yourself fucking someone, it will get on the internet. It's not possible, it's guaranteed.
If something gets on the internet, you will lose your career because everyone else in the world is perfect and have never made a mistake.
If you are washed up, have lost your career but are good at fucking people, you can consider a variety of political opportunities.
If politics doesn't pay you enough, perhaps international football administration might take sirs fancy?

 

[Jarv]

all three quite rightly sacked

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33175820

 

[Bottega Don]

Glad they're gone.

I was getting very Thaierd of their behaviour.

 

[claret50]

The club had no other choice, good riddance to the three of them.

 

[Benji]

The Racist Sex Tape Trio is a terrible band name.

 

[Jarv]

The Racist Sex Tape Trio is a terrible band name.

Take the word racist out and Sex Tape Trio sounds like a Steel Panther song

 

[NiallQuinnDiscoPants]

I signed Tom Hopper for Fleetwood on Career Mode on Fifa 15.

He was shit, only scored me 4 goals.

 

[DarkSithLord]

Sky Sports News HQ ‏@SkySportsNewsHQ 36s37 seconds ago
BREAKING: Sacked Leicester striker Tom Hopper signs for Scunthorpe. #SSNHQ

 

[Jarv]

Adam Smith has also signed for Northampton #Cobblers

 

[Red]

Do we have any actual evidence that these women didn't understand what was being said?

This is EG all over. He plays games of semantics and uses weasel words. According to his logic people who were led to believe that smoking was good for them in the past were not victims.

 

[Red]

Well from an ethical point of view I think it matters whether there was a victim or not quite a bit.

The perpetrators of the crime knew they were doing something wrong. That alone renders it not being a victimless crime. If it came to light that I'd been taking money out of your bank account over a period of 6 months is it only a crime after you find out I've been doing it? Just because you didn't previously know I was doing it, you were still a victim of my crime. The law would take into account when the crime started would it not?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The perpetrators of the crime knew they were doing something wrong. That alone renders it not being a victimless crime.

That rationale is built on the premise that a) there's such a thing as 'knowing' you did something wrong, and b) that victimless crimes exist. The former is definitely untrue, and the latter is the crux of the issue, so it makes no sense to assume either as part of any argument, especially one that ends with such a non sequitur.

If it came to light that I'd been taking money out of your bank account over a period of 6 months is it only a crime after you find out I've been doing it? Just because you didn't previously know I was doing it, you were still a victim of my crime. The law would take into account when the crime started would it not?

I never said that awareness is a prerequisite for victimhood. Obviously taking my money harms me, whether I'm aware of it or not, but the only harm verbal abuse can cause is through the person being aware of it, which they seemingly weren't until after the tape was released. And the law is neither here nor there, it deals with criminality, not morality.

This is EG all over. He plays games of semantics and uses weasel words. According to his logic people who were led to believe that smoking was good for them in the past were not victims.

No, not according to my logic. You're confused, as per.