Transferring Emails To External Hard...
Technology1 min ago
What’s This Bloke On?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
He has clearly lost the plot, and stating such nonsense in public should tell the medical authorities that he needs supervision.
He accuses the west of hypocrisy but fails to give a single example. He speaks of history when some nations were simply better at doing what was accepted as the norm at the time, than others were. And then tries to use this as a reason not to critisise present wrongdoing when he has utterly failed to understand it isn't what someone did once upon a time in the past that is most important, but what is occuring now.
Everyone is in a position to discuss morality. There is no bar on such speech. Treatment of migrant workers and a nation's attitude to LBGTQ+ rights are important issues.
The last minute decision to ban (most) booze is also something worth criticism. Any decent authority makes the ground rules clear, way way before folk commit themselves to something. It indicates an authority whose decisions are untrustworthy; it's not as if there has been a sudden change of leadership.
And no one owes any apology for things done before they even existed. Seriously he seems to have a distinct inability to understand or to think rationally.
If commercial companies took up issues with the government they would soon be replaced by those who didn't try lecturing them. Clearly only those outside the country dare do so; if they have the incentive so to do.
We need fewer of these apologists for nation's disregarding basic morality, and many more folk finding the courage to speak out. Meanwhile an apologist ought not be in a position such as FIFA chief. Their nonsense reflects on the organisation and keeps it in disrepute.
He accuses the west of hypocrisy but fails to give a single example. He speaks of history when some nations were simply better at doing what was accepted as the norm at the time, than others were. And then tries to use this as a reason not to critisise present wrongdoing when he has utterly failed to understand it isn't what someone did once upon a time in the past that is most important, but what is occuring now.
Everyone is in a position to discuss morality. There is no bar on such speech. Treatment of migrant workers and a nation's attitude to LBGTQ+ rights are important issues.
The last minute decision to ban (most) booze is also something worth criticism. Any decent authority makes the ground rules clear, way way before folk commit themselves to something. It indicates an authority whose decisions are untrustworthy; it's not as if there has been a sudden change of leadership.
And no one owes any apology for things done before they even existed. Seriously he seems to have a distinct inability to understand or to think rationally.
If commercial companies took up issues with the government they would soon be replaced by those who didn't try lecturing them. Clearly only those outside the country dare do so; if they have the incentive so to do.
We need fewer of these apologists for nation's disregarding basic morality, and many more folk finding the courage to speak out. Meanwhile an apologist ought not be in a position such as FIFA chief. Their nonsense reflects on the organisation and keeps it in disrepute.
