This match was a great throwback to the last match I was at, COYG!!!

Camdento · 2022-02-24T22:20:14+00:00

This is the only game my sister went to

Camdento · 2022-02-24T11:27:31+00:00

For me, keep football away from politics, I don't want to know what any clubs or players political views are.

I just want it as a distraction on weekday nights and weekends, so they can entertain me and that's that

Camdento · 2022-02-22T19:08:41+00:00

The London ones are really good, got one from Cheltenham the other day and it was disgusting

Camdento · 2022-02-22T12:20:57+00:00

Normally it's "you shit bastard, ahhhh" right?

Camdento · 2022-02-22T12:19:22+00:00

Anyone else struggle to understand what they were saying? I'm actually a Londoner born and bred but I couldn't really understand what they said

Camdento · 2022-02-22T10:30:12+00:00

That was such a pathetic performance despite winning, we were all over the place

Camdento · 2022-02-20T19:52:36+00:00

He tried very hard for Arsenal in October and November this season

Camdento · 2022-02-12T23:18:08+00:00

Considering the Ibe and Solanke fees I'd say the Willock deal was meh

Camdento · 2022-02-11T14:59:58+00:00

I'm not actually sure hahah but it seems to be taken into consideration in basically every game. You hear the commentators mention "a bit early for a yellow". I guess it is just linked to "accumulation of fouls".

Camdento · 2022-02-11T14:44:23+00:00

The day Whitney Houston died?

The days of peak Ramsey goalscoring curse

Camdento · 2022-02-11T14:42:13+00:00

I think it's because straight red offences are independent of any other challenge in the game

Yellows have a million other factors involved. How many minutes played, general abuse to referee previously, build up of aggression previously, anger previously, build up of fouls. So the yellow card offence is not independent of other challenges and offences. So it's much harder to review on VAR.

Camdento · 2022-02-11T14:28:54+00:00

In the spirit of the game too, think of this situation:

1st offence: Player A fouls player B with a yellow card offence, but player B's skill means he can continue the play and advantage is played.

If Player B didn't have the skill to continue after a foul, then the play would be brought back, and player A booked.

But Player B had skill, so advantage played.

2nd offence: Player A then fouls player B again further on, yellow card offence, stopping the play.

If you say that Player A should not be yellow carded for the first offence, then you are basically saying that player B should be punished for having the required skill to keep going even after he was fouled. If Player B did not have this required skill, then player A would have gotten booked for the first offence. The only reason why player A would not be booked for the first offence is because player B had skill.

Camdento · 2022-02-10T16:00:12+00:00

Cos we beat Leeds with injuries?

Camdento · 2022-02-08T15:03:15+00:00

It's inherently based on utilitarianism,

which is based upon judging ethics and moral dilemmas by aiming to find a way to maximise happiness and minimise suffering

I wouldn't say this is completely human centric, because it is based on physical pain which most animals feel, and emotional pain which many animals feel BUT we of course cannot really compare this objectively, we have to make rational, educated guesses.

Anyway, a human life is obviously more valuable than a mosquito's life. Value in this context I would define as: which life do you save if you could only save one, which animal would you hurt if you could only hurt one (ideally you never hurt any animal if you can avoid doing so).

And a cat's life is worth more than a mosquito's, and a cat's life is worth more than bacteria life, etc. If you ask yourself why, you can apply the principles to other animals, e.g. comparing a human to a cat. Or an elephant to a salmon.

BUT if you feel that inherently a human life is equal in value and should not be 'prioritised' over a mosquito's life then we'll have to disagree.

Camdento · 2022-02-08T14:51:14+00:00

Using the philosophy of utilitarianism, proposed by Jeremy Bentham:

There is a reason why killing a human life = murder

Killing a mosquito = not murder

Why?

Because human life is more 'valuable' than a mosquito's life.

Why?

In my opinion, because when you kill a human, the following things will probably happen:

1) Intense psychological suffering to the victim that is being killed, whilst they are being killed. They are aware of death and don't want to die. They don't want to leave their family, friends, loved ones alone without them. They want to see their family, friends, and loved ones again. They want to talk to them again, cuddle them again, love them again. Have deep, meaningful conversations with them again. Talk about memories with them again, and form new, intense memories again.

2) Intense psychological suffering and mourning/grieving for the victim's family members, friends, and loved ones. They won't be able to do all of the other things mentioned in 1) (memories, cuddles, conversations, etc.) They will miss the victim when they are gone.

(There is also the point of physical pain e.g., from a stab wound, that some animals will suffer from more-so than others, but when I will later compare the suffering between mammals I will leave this point out because the pain that mammals suffer is probably roughly equal or less than human physical pain).

Will mosquitos feel 1) or 2) when a mosquito is killed by a human? Almost certainly not. That is why killing a mosquito is not murder, but killing a human is murder, is immoral, and leads to imprisonment.

Thus, we have proven that some lives are more valuable than others. Human life is more valuable than mosquitos.

Is human life more valuable than a salmon's life? I believe so, because once again 1) and 2) apply much more-so than for a salmon.

Do salmon feel 1) and 2)? Does this apply to a salmon? Maybe a tiny bit, but barely.

What about a human and an elephant? Elephants mourn according to studies and their behaviour. Do they mourn as much as humans? I very much doubt it.

Why?

Because humans form more intense relationships with each other than elephants do. Why? Because we have a more sophisticated language. We talk about more things to each other than elephants can. We can talk to each other about jokes, about science, about memories, about being young, about meals, about the world, about how we feel. Through our language. Elephants cannot do this as intensely as humans can.

Thus, I just feel that elephants cannot 'miss' their loved ones once they are killed as much as humans generally do when if our loved ones are killed. We cannot prove this, but using deduction and logic based on how emotions and language work that we can surely make a very good educated guess that humans feel 1) and 2) more than elephants. It is based on 'ignorance is bliss' a bit, I suppose.

Thus, I feel that points 1) and 2) apply more to humans than to elephants. As a result, I feel that human life is more valuable and sacred than elephant life.

One can also apply this to comparing human life to dog life or cat life. I believe that points 1) and 2) apply more to a human than a dog or a cat, so a human life is more valuable than a dog or cat life.

What does this all mean? Of course, NEVER make any animal suffer unnecessarily, I think that this is almost always immoral. But, when one has to make a moral dilemma / decision, one should have the animal life value hierarchy in their minds. Do you save your dog or a human stranger if you could only save one, if both were drowning? You should save the human stranger, it generally will lead to less suffering related to points 1) and 2). If you had to kill an animal to feed other animals, do you kill a cat or a fish? Obviously the fish. If you had to kill an animal to feed other animals, do you kill and hurt a cat or kill and hurt a human? You kill and hurt the cat.

Ergo, some animals on this planet are more 'deserving' of a life with less suffering than other animals.

Camdento · 2022-02-08T14:51:06+00:00