Marcus Rashford

[6666]

Helping people that need help is not a bad thing. The bottom few rungs of society doesn't need to mean constantly worrying and suffering.

[Stan]

27 minutes ago, Lucas said:

I've not got much else to add that hasn't already been said in the thread about Rashford. 

The only thing I'd love to happen, as a show of respect, is to award him Sports Personality of the Year. 

The award should be exactly about what it says on the tin, personality. And Rashford has shown us all his, delivering with actions, rather than just words, what he is all about.

I don't think there is a Sportsman or woman in the UK that can achieve something quite as great as what Rashford has this year.

Thought this earlier. Nailed on to win it and it'd be 100% deserved. 

[Burning Gold]

The fact all of this is happening is a vindication of the Tories' worldview; charities and the private sector providing welfare support instead of the government. At some point in the future, this will be used as justification to further roll back the welfare state.

That's not a criticism - what Marcus Rashford's doing is incredbile and the individual businesses deserve massive credit for chipping in during a time they're struggling themselves. This is just where we are as a country

[Dr. Gonzo]

55 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

The fact all of this is happening is a vindication of the Tories' worldview; charities and the private sector providing welfare support instead of the government. At some point in the future, this will be used as justification to further roll back the welfare state.

That's not a criticism - what Marcus Rashford's doing is incredbile and the individual businesses deserve massive credit for chipping in during a time they're struggling themselves. This is just where we are as a country

Yeah I agree. What Rashford is doing is commendable and while I hate United shitloads, I respect the fuck out of him because he's going out of his way to do something for kids across the country.

But it's a sad state that we're letting vulnerable children be neglected by the government and instead we have to rely on charities, big businesses, and millionaires to provide because the government can not. And this is part of that whole notion that the "taxpayer" shouldn't have to fund for taking care of the vulnerable in our society (although imo, that's the biggest part of the actual role of government - to protect citizens, especially those that need protecting the most).. because it'll be taken care of by the goodness of the hearts of the people at the very top.

But I think it's a joke that Rashford feels compelled to do this and be the face of tackling the issue of child hunger in the UK. He's a hero, for sure, for doing it... but it's not his job - it's the government. But thankfully he's big enough to at least attempt to do a part of their job for them.

[UNORTHODOX]

Boris “u-turn” Johnson will change his mind again next week after all the negative backlash brought upon his party. the man is an idiot.

[6666]

37 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah I agree. What Rashford is doing is commendable and while I hate United shitloads, I respect the fuck out of him because he's going out of his way to do something for kids across the country.

But it's a sad state that we're letting vulnerable children be neglected by the government and instead we have to rely on charities, big businesses, and millionaires to provide because the government can not. And this is part of that whole notion that the "taxpayer" shouldn't have to fund for taking care of the vulnerable in our society (although imo, that's the biggest part of the actual role of government - to protect citizens, especially those that need protecting the most).. because it'll be taken care of by the goodness of the hearts of the people at the very top.

But I think it's a joke that Rashford feels compelled to do this and be the face of tackling the issue of child hunger in the UK. He's a hero, for sure, for doing it... but it's not his job - it's the government. But thankfully he's big enough to at least attempt to do a part of their job for them.

Some people don't believe that it's the government's responsibility to make sure that society functions for everyone, which begs the question, what do they think the point of government is?

We live in a world where people are envious of those in trouble getting help. Sad.

[The Artful Dodger]

4 hours ago, Storts said:

Incorrect

Take it you fancy yourself as a politician then. No wonder, 80k and climbing isn’t it. 

[Storts]

13 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Take it you fancy yourself as a politician then. No wonder, 80k and climbing isn’t it. 

Not at all. But I know some incredible people in politics, in it for all the right reasons who fight for their constituents and their needs, and who truly want to make a difference. 

 

 

[Guest]

@Cicero I'm not sure if we are misunderstanding each other here. It appears as if you are suggesting people with higher salaries live more moral lives. In theory if people are more intelligent or their E.Q is higher they are more likely to live morally. However there is a lot of choices we have to make morally. People can be selfish ass holes no matter how intelligent they are. I've had a look at what you have said and evidence for more intelligent people being more morale is inconclusive. 

As for your other point.  Having a baby if you dont think you can feed it is wrong. However having a baby knowing  you can feed your baby with benefits isn't. The reason I think that is because if you look at the mass profit huge companies make most people arent being paid their full value. If they were they wouldn't need to claim benefits. Therefore that is a problem with the system. So having a child even if you know you will need to claim is a morally acceptable thing to do. 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Storts said:

Not at all. But I know some incredible people in politics, in it for all the right reasons who fight for their constituents and their needs, and who truly want to make a difference. 

 

 

I'm sure that's true. Particularly the ones who do things that don't benefit them but benefit other people. There are some very bad selfish politicians but there are good ones as well.

[Bluewolf]

16 hours ago, Storts said:

Not at all. But I know some incredible people in politics, in it for all the right reasons who fight for their constituents and their needs, and who truly want to make a difference. 

 

 

Much as though I hate politicians I am sure there are a lot out there that do want to change things for the better and have genuine concerns that they feel need addressing.. I do however feel that they are probably bogged down by old school politicians and archaic thinking that makes change a huge challenge for them but rather than walking away and giving up it's better to adjust and try and fit in even if it means compromising on some matters just to stay in the game... 

[The Artful Dodger]

Anyone who wants to have power is not to be trusted. Anyone with power should be chosen against their choice.

[RandoEFC+]

6 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Anyone who wants to have power is not to be trusted. Anyone with power should be chosen against their choice.

That's just silly. I'd never go into politics but watching that debate about this the other night made me want to get in there and sort those bastards out (in a totally democratic way of course).

[Cicero]

4 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Cicero I'm not sure if we are misunderstanding each other here. It appears as if you are suggesting people with higher salaries live more moral lives. In theory if people are more intelligent or their E.Q is higher they are more likely to live morally. However there is a lot of choices we have to make morally. People can be selfish ass holes no matter how intelligent they are. I've had a look at what you have said and evidence for more intelligent people being more morale is inconclusive. 

As for your other point.  Having a baby if you dont think you can feed it is wrong. However having a baby knowing  you can feed your baby with benefits isn't. The reason I think that is because if you look at the mass profit huge companies make most people arent being paid their full value. If they were they wouldn't need to claim benefits. Therefore that is a problem with the system. So having a child even if you know you will need to claim is a morally acceptable thing to do. 

Can’t agree with you there chief. 

[Danny]

On 23/10/2020 at 16:04, Storts said:

Incorrect

Don’t worry storts you’re covered, think he actually meant “pole dancing”

[Danny]

For capitalism to work it requires poverty, you cannot have extreme wealth without exploitation. Therefore you can’t blame people for being in a pocket of society that the system needs to carry on.

Reproduction is genetic, instinctual, people will reproduce for different reasons even though they can’t afford to. People always have done and always will. Sometimes it just happens, the pill or abortions aren’t for everyone.

If you want to starve children then that’s on you, but don’t claim that you want to live in a civilised society, or that crime is up, because your actions aren’t for the better of that society it’s for the better of the individual. If you starve children you’re helping push along the elements of society you will dislike such as crime.

[Machado]

1 hour ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Anyone who wants to have power is not to be trusted. Anyone with power should be chosen against their choice.

Depends if you think seeking power to influence is always about authority and never about altruism.

I get it though. It seems to me that success in politics is about scheming rather than producing. The septic in me tends to believe that those who actually want to serve the world in the best possible way turn to other pursuits.

[The Artful Dodger]

26 minutes ago, Machado said:

Depends if you think seeking power to influence is always about authority and never about altruism.

I get it though. It seems to me that success in politics is about scheming rather than producing. The septic in me tends to believe that those who actually want to serve the world in the best possible way turn to other pursuits.

Americans lad, they’re the issue. The most incorrigibly obnoxious people on the planet. 

[LFCMike]

It's started

 

[RandoEFC+]

I mean, it's disgusting, but predictable. He would probably do better to just not justify them with a response, but if he can take them on in the right way then he has a big head start on public approval and might end up making the Mail look like the cunts they are which is always good too.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I’m just surprised that Tory rag has the nerve to criticise a member of the UK’s ultra rich! For their investment choices.

Nah just kidding, he’s the wrong skin colour and too far left leaning for them to not criticise. Racist cunts.

Fuck everything about the Daily Mail. Fuck it’s owners, fuck it’s editors, fuck it’s writers, fuck it’s readers. They’re all scum.

[Stan]

Disgusting. Yet they'll get away with it time and time again. Terrible. 

[RandoEFC+]

I was reminded the other day about Jacob Rees-Mogg and his company in the Canary Islands to avoid paying millions of pound in corporation tax in the UK that would help to pay for hospitals, schools and feeding impoverished children. Supports Brexit though so he's a proper patriot.

[JoshBRFC+]

Are any of us really surprised though?

About as tasteless of an article as you can get. Part of the reason why i haven't read one of their scummy articles in full for a long long time.

[The Artful Dodger]

It is worth noting that Rashford signed up with a new PR company shortly before all this, they’ve helped people like Jay-Z boost their profile and income and they’ve been heavily involved in this campaign. 

Im trying to push the cynic in me to one side but it does raise an important and interesting philosophical question about motives. Does a good outcome need to have a purely good motive to be morally respectable? Immanuel Kant would say yes, Jeremy Bentham would say no. 

Nobody would deny the good outcome of kids getting free meals but I have been disappointed in Rashford saying he doesn’t want to ‘get political’, it smacks of protecting his brand. This is an inherently political issue and ultimately the only long term solution to this is a revolution in how we structure our society and economy.