The John Terry Moral Reasoning Thread

[Dr. Medulla]

Please direct all enquiries to Mr. Flex on the eighth floor, as he has my full authority to speak for me on this matter.

[Wolter]

Please direct all enquiries to Mr. Flex on the eighth floor, as he has my full authority to speak for me on this matter.

Yeah, I'm just going to go ahead and give Flex power of attorney. It's long overdue...

[eumaas]

And, obviously, it's really none of our business in the end.

I would mostly agree, but two things:
1. Bridge quit the England team over it
2. The Man City/Chels match, Bridge wouldn't shake Terry's hand

I think those two things, since they've impinged on the game, make it more "public."

[Flex]

And, obviously, it's really none of our business in the end.

I would mostly agree, but two things:
1. Bridge quit the England team over it
2. The Man City/Chels match, Bridge wouldn't shake Terry's hand

I think those two things, since they've impinged on the game, make it more "public."

Oh yeah, I guess there's relevance in that sense. Since I don't really follow the sport, I'd sort of forgotten about that bit. I was thinking more in the abstract. I guess it's a fan's "business" insofar as it affects rosters and all, although prying too much still makes me squeamish.

[eumaas]

And, obviously, it's really none of our business in the end.

I would mostly agree, but two things:
1. Bridge quit the England team over it
2. The Man City/Chels match, Bridge wouldn't shake Terry's hand

I think those two things, since they've impinged on the game, make it more "public."

Oh yeah, I guess there's relevance in that sense. Since I don't really follow the sport, I'd sort of forgotten about that bit. I was thinking more in the abstract. I guess it's a fan's "business" insofar as it affects rosters and all, although prying too much still makes me squeamish.

I think it would've been best handled in private, but 1. Terry tried to suppress the story apparently, which oddly enough is what made it public I guess? I don't understand British law, and 2. Bridge seems to want to make it public--I suppose all parties could've shut up about it as soon as the press got onto it, 3. England's manager stripped Terry of captaincy. And re: the handshake, there's this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... john-terry

Graham Poll has claimed that Mike Dean, the referee in Saturday's match between Chelsea and Manchester City, spared John Terry and Wayne Bridge the embarrassment of a pre-match stand-off by reversing the Premier League's handshake protocol.

The assistant referee, Bobby Pollock, suggested to Dean that he ask City's captain, Shay Given, to lead his team-mates down the Chelsea line, writes Poll in today's Daily Mail.

The focus before the match, which City won 4-2, was on whether Bridge would shake Terry's hand after the pair fell out over tabloid allegations. Usually the home side's captain leads his team down the visitors' line in order to welcome them to the ground and, of course, that would have been Terry. Dean's decision to alter proceedings ensured the Chelsea captain could not stand in front of Bridge and demand a handshake.

Instead Bridge was able to walk past Terry and reject his outstretched hand with the minimum of fuss, thereby avoiding a potentially ugly confrontation. Bridge was, therefore, able to make his point to his tormentor and an intrigued public before going on to help City to a cathartic victory.

[Flex]

It kinda seems to me like maybe those two people need to just get over themselves.

[eumaas]

It kinda seems to me like maybe those two people need to just get over themselves.

Probably best for the game.

More game-related context:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... ge-chelsea

[eumaas]

Incidentally it looks like Perroncel denies the affair:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20100228/3 ... rry-t.html

[101Walterton]

Before you debate you do know Vanessa Perroncel is not just Bridge's ex girlfriend she is also the mother of his 3 year old son.

Not sure how that entitles him a say as to whose penis she allows into her vagina now that he's opted out.

Terry knew full well what he was doing and from your post I would suggest you aren't aware of what that was.

We're not talking about the code between teammates here. I understand these codes. I'm saying that the code is nonsense because it fundamentally objectifies women, it turns them into property owned in perpetuity by the athlete. That kind of mindset is seriously fucked up.

"I would say that John Terry is under no moral obligation to his teammate, beyond some consideration of social grace in the handling of all this. To assume moral obligation necessarily means that the ex-boyfriend has some say in the life of his ex-girlfriend, which he does not (regardless of whether they have a child together). It necessarily treats her as property." Flex.

I dont think either of you grasp what it is that has upset so many people including Wayne Bridge. This has nothing to do with any perceived ownership of his ex girlfriend by Bridge or objectification of women. This is about the friendship (they weren't just team mates) between Bridge and Terry. Why do you think it is news, it's not like Terry hasn't been caught with his pants down before.

[Flex]

I dont think either of you grasp what it is that has upset so many people including Wayne Bridge. This has nothing to do with any perceived ownership of his ex girlfriend by Bridge or objectification of women. This is about the friendship (they weren't just team mates) between Bridge and Terry. Why do you think it is news, it's not like Terry hasn't been caught with his pants down before.

I think I see what you're saying, this was definitely seen as a slight against Wayne Bridge - a betrayal between friends, as you say. What I'm saying - and what I think Doctor Medulla and Wolter are saying, although they can certainly correct me if I'm wrong - is that to read this as somehow betraying a friend or damaging a friendship or what have you, you have to believe that Wayne Bridge somehow has a stake in what relationships his ex-girlfriend has. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter at all. That Terry and Bridge are/were friends shouldn't be relevant, because Bridge has no claims over who his friend or ex-girlfriend get involved with - even if it's with each other.

Maybe you can break it down for me further if you think I'm still missing a crucial element. Thanks in advance!

[101Walterton]

I dont think either of you grasp what it is that has upset so many people including Wayne Bridge. This has nothing to do with any perceived ownership of his ex girlfriend by Bridge or objectification of women. This is about the friendship (they weren't just team mates) between Bridge and Terry. Why do you think it is news, it's not like Terry hasn't been caught with his pants down before.

I think I see what you're saying, this was definitely seen as a slight against Wayne Bridge - a betrayal between friends, as you say. What I'm saying - and what I think Doctor Medulla and Wolter are saying, although they can certainly correct me if I'm wrong - is that to read this as somehow betraying a friend or damaging a friendship or what have you, you have to believe that Wayne Bridge somehow has a stake in what relationships his ex-girlfriend has. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter at all. That Terry and Bridge are/were friends shouldn't be relevant, because Bridge has no claims over who his friend or ex-girlfriend get involved with - even if it's with each other.

Maybe you can break it down for me further if you think I'm still missing a crucial element. Thanks in advance!

There is a betrayal of friendship. I think the element you miss is Terry's total lack of thought for and respect of Bridge. Clearly he didn't think and or care about the effect it would have on his friend. What if Bridge was still in love with this girl, what if he never wanted to break up in the first place, what if he was hoping they could get back together ? Clearly Bridge did care or he wouldn't walk away from his International football career and Terry would have known.

[101Walterton]

Ask yourself this question, is it ok to go out with my friends ex without asking him first how he would feel about it ?
If your answer is yes, then you won't understand what all this is about.

[Flex]

Ask yourself this question, is it ok to go out with my friends ex without asking him first how he would feel about it ?
If your answer is yes, then you won't understand what all this is about.

It's probably better social graces (which I said in my original post on the subject), but I'd be under no moral onus to do so. It's none of the friend's business.

Not to be too combative, but I'd like to say that I think that even by answering "yes," I think I understand what this is about. The conclusions I reach are just different from yours. Which is fair. We're under no obligation to agree with each other.

[101Walterton]

Ask yourself this question, is it ok to go out with my friends ex without asking him first how he would feel about it ?
If your answer is yes, then you won't understand what all this is about.

It's probably better social graces (which I said in my original post on the subject), but I'd be under no moral onus to do so. It's none of the friend's business.

Not to be too combative, but I'd like to say that I think that even by answering "yes," I think I understand what this is about. The conclusions I reach are just different from yours. Which is fair. We're under no obligation to agree with each other.

No we aren't under any obligation to agree but if you think " it's none of the friend's business" we clearly work by a different moral code I would never treat my friends with that lack of thought for them.

[Flex]

No we aren't under any obligation to agree but if you think " it's none of the friend's business" we clearly work by a different moral code I would never treat my friends with that lack of thought for them.

That's fair, I see what you're saying. We definitely all want to do right by our friends, I know I certainly do! I guess maybe I just see it a little bit differently from you. When we talk about a situation where, say, I'm the hypothetical friend who is pursuing/engaged in a relationship with a friend's ex-girlfriend (or boyfriend!), I guess maybe I think that it's the friend of mine who is abusing the friendship if he or she gets bent out of shape and tried to pressure some outcome or another. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their own feelings and reactions, we often can't help them! However, I'd hope that even if this friend of mine was in love/interested in the person I was pursuing a relationship with, they'd realize that we're both independent agents and that it's unfair to try to force their friends (and maybe this person they feel great affection for!) to conform to (unrequited!) feelings they have/had.

Speaking from personal experience, as opposed to a hypothetical, I've been on both sides of that equation (all three, actually) and while I certainly reacted to a friend dating an ex- that I still had feelings towards, I realized that it was none of my business. When I was on the other side of the equation, dating the ex- of a friend, we just kind of stumbled into it and my friend kind of had to deal with it. I don't think I was being unfair, he may or may not have had feelings towards this woman which she certainly didn't reciprocate and we were two independent agents acting of our own accord. In any case, my friend said - quite rightly - it was none of his business and we remain friends to this day (the woman in question is long gone from both our lives).

I think that feeling the need to express outrage or that you have some kind of claim to who a friend can or cannot be involved with is somewhat troubling. It seems to me that it's attempting to subvert the agency of another person for your own ends or satisfaction. This is especially troubling if you're dealing with, say, an ex-wife or girlfriend since it often seems that people feel they have some sort of "right" to be involved in their personal affairs!

As I said, that's just my take. As you said, certainly the goal is to do right by our friends. I think for me that means respecting their rights to engage in whatever relationships they choose! As I said previously, tho, we're not necessarily under any obligation to agree with each other and your mileage, of course, may vary.

Cheers!