ZCU - "We are not interested in white players, only new Taibus"

[Slow Love™]

I do not see why any group could find immoralities about touring Zimbabwe - it really is as simple as: we cannot have any effect on the situation, so therefore there is no point making difficulties in other ways.

The ludicrousness of this sentence is breathtaking. Richard, I still don't think you're grasping what actually entails a moral principle, because you keep coming back to the "practicality" of any given stance defining it's moral value.

To give a quick, simple example: Every week, at a large village, a group of men visit with trinkets and baubles. They sell these goods at a market, and make loads of money. It is known by many at the village that these goods are robbed from others and sometimes taken upon pain of death.

Two people in the village choose not to buy the goods, and refuse on principle not to participate in such a ghoulish and exploitative commerce. Their abstention is barely noticed, and nobody pays any attention to their protests - the goods are highly valued, and these guys are here every Saturday, so why not?

The fact that their protest is ineffectual and doesn't seem to intervene in whether or not these marauders will visit each week has absolutely nothing to do with either the validity of their moral stance or that of the other village buyers. It cannot.

This is not designed to be an absolute analogy to the effectiveness of protest regarding Zimbabwe (in fact, IMO, protests about that issue could actually result in change), nor to illustrate the "crimes" the Mugabe regime is guilty of - only to demonstrate that what you say defines the validity of a moral stance simply does not. In no way are those abstainers' moral concerns (both with their own actions, and those of their buying compatriots) "unfounded" because they're not making a difference.

Make sense?

 

[Craig]

If one country isnt going to go, then all countries shouldnt go.

It is all right for a team full of black cricketers (ie WI) to tour there and no one mentions anything, yet a team full of white cricketers get presserised not to go. Spot any double standards?

If England doesnt go, niether should India, Pakistan, WI, South Africa etc.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That's rather silly. It's not essentially a black/white issue. It's a World v Mugabe issue. Whether Mugabe was white, red, blue or green the World would oppose him and his dictatorship.

Each cricketing/governing body has the right to decide how they wish to approach the situation based on their moral stance on the issue. Some may not see the benefits in boycotting, whilst others who have higher international allegiances, image and associations, may see it otherwise.

It's a morality issue, but not one based on colour. It's based on human rights and the desire to preserve a decent standard of life.

 

[Craig]

But if it is a world issue, then should all Cricketing Boards get together and help boycott the ZCU?

 

[Richard]

The ludicrousness of this sentence is breathtaking. Richard, I still don't think you're grasping what actually entails a moral principle, because you keep coming back to the "practicality" of any given stance defining it's moral value.

To give a quick, simple example: Every week, at a large village, a group of men visit with trinkets and baubles. They sell these goods at a market, and make loads of money. It is known by many at the village that these goods are robbed from others and sometimes taken upon pain of death.

Two people in the village choose not to buy the goods, and refuse on principle not to participate in such a ghoulish and exploitative commerce. Their abstention is barely noticed, and nobody pays any attention to their protests - the goods are highly valued, and these guys are here every Saturday, so why not?

The fact that their protest is ineffectual and doesn't seem to intervene in whether or not these marauders will visit each week has absolutely nothing to do with either the validity of their moral stance or that of the other village buyers. It cannot.

This is not designed to be an absolute analogy to the effectiveness of protest regarding Zimbabwe (in fact, IMO, protests about that issue could actually result in change), nor to illustrate the "crimes" the Mugabe regime is guilty of - only to demonstrate that what you say defines the validity of a moral stance simply does not. In no way are those abstainers' moral concerns (both with their own actions, and those of their buying compatriots) "unfounded" because they're not making a difference.

Make sense?

IMO the people in the village not buying the goods are a disgrace - there are plenty of things they could do to stop the marauders.
Like dispose of the them, for instance.:rolleyes:
Disposing of Mugabe is altogether rather more difficult.

 

[Neil Pickup]

But if it is a world issue, then should all Cricketing Boards get together and help boycott the ZCU?

Boycott Zimbabwe with everything, everywhere.

 

[Langeveldt]

Boycott Zimbabwe with everything, everywhere.

Sheesh... and that would help their situation no end wouldnt it.. :rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

The trouble is, I don't think anyone really knows what would and wouldn't be likely to help any more.
It's almost past the proverbial "point of no return".