Jump to content

gaz5

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    1,158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

gaz5 last won the day on March 3 2020

gaz5 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,768 Excellent

About gaz5

  • Rank
    Third Division Sub

Profile Information

  • My Team
    Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

4,803 profile views
  1. Sorry, but that's just nonsense, you're scrambling for an argument now to fit your position. No one is "born into religion". People are brought into religious groups after they are born by their parents. You are correct, they don't have a choice. But, that applies in exactly the same way to Rangers, or Celtic fans who are brought into that group by their parents in exactly the same way they would be brought into religion? That is going to be a pretty high proportion of their support, especially in the West of Scotland? They have grown up with it through a parent. But not all people join religion when they are children, nor do all old firm fans pick it up as children. It's a mixed group. But everyone still gets a choice when they are old enough to be able to make that informed choice themselves. That applies to religion as well as football team (as it must unless you have inconsistent positions). So why would anyone, in your own words, looking at the history of Christianity or Catholicism and thinking "yep that's for me" be afforded a pass from you for that history and future ill deeds when someone, again in your own words, looking at the history of Rangers and thinking "yep that's for me" inherit that past and future I'll deeds and become an instant p***k? If it's truly about the past and present ill deeds, surely your position would be the same? Both of those people belong to a specific group, both had a choice at some stage, potentially after both having been indoctrinated when they were too young to know better and both chose to stay in their "group". Arguably one chose a path with a far longer history of issues and societal problems, which is your measure, than the other, but you're fine with that one and not the other. Further, why would you treat everyone in those groups, hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland, as if they were the exactly same for no other reason than they are in the group? Could that be because of your own initial bias towards one of the group's? So we've debunked group, choice and religion now. What else you got?
  2. I actually pointed out in my last answer that I had drawn no equivalence with "group" and "racism" at all, because I've never been talking about nor mentioned racism in anything I've said. That was a false assumption that you made and thus a false equivalence drawn by yourself. You've now choosen to ignore my answer to the thing you're accusing me of ignoring that you actually made up that I'd said in the first place. I'm seeing a pattern emerging here. [emoji846] But I'll humour you. Is someone's religion a choice, given the crux of your argument is around religious prejudice and choice? And given that religion is a choice (I'm an atheist for the avoidance of doubt), then people fall into religious "groups". And given that "group" is, obviously, one that people are in by choice it is your position that what? They can't be victims of prejudice because they are in a group that they chose? Or that by simply choosing to be a part of that group they are enabling anything bad that goes on within it, past, present or future and that if people want to hold that against them and berate them for it, even if nothing to do with them, that's ok? Or in other words, arguing for sectarianism? Or does choice only matter if it's a football team you don't like personally? If you're happy with your position though that's absolutely fine, I have no need nor interest in convincing you to change your mind. I'm merely pointing out, having stumbled across this when reading through the threads, that of all the posters in this thread so far, many people, myself included, will consider that you are the only one showing any prejudice at all. Whichever banner you want to file that under. You've confirmed it again by the second point you've listed, where your stance remains that all Rangers fans are bigots simply by being Rangers fans. That, quite frankly, is tinfoil hat stuff.
  3. I haven't mentioned racism, or sectarianism, intentionally, because I refuse to play whataboutery with who's prejudice is worse. Prejudice is prejudice, in whatever form it comes and I don't care for it in any form. But I'm not talking about any event outside of the contents of this thread. All I'm pointing out is that you have taken a position that your observed and proudly announced prejudice towards a distinct group of people, who likely only share one attribute in common (being Rangers fans) that makes them "different" to you is OK. And at the same time you are proclaiming that everyone in the group is bad because you assign prejudice to all of them as a certainty based on nothing but your own, self acknowledged, prejudice around that group. And furthermore you make specific, sweeping and unfounded in the context of this thread assertions about that whole group, as if they were one, based purely on that single attribute that in your mind makes them "different" to you, regardless of actual observed action of the handful of Rangers fans you've interacted with. None of those Rangers fans on this thread have done anything to suggest they are prejudiced themselves. But your stance has been that they are, because of the group they belong to and not what they have our haven't done. You can't have it both ways, was really my initial point. I know plenty of Rangers (and Celtic and other clubs) fans who are absolute bangers and have proven to be so through their actions. People who are, unfortunately, perpetuating an archaic problem. Is this more prevalent in the Old Firm? Of course it is. But I know far more who aren't, they're decent people without a prejudice in them who just happen to support a football team. Supporting that football team doesn't make them prejudiced in and of itself, nor does it make them enablers. I've no idea if you supported Kudela or not, I'll take you at face value that you didn't. Most people have called it for what it was. But you've defo gone really far down a different rabbit hole to prove it.
  4. So you think it's ok that you actually are hating people based purely on your own skewed perception of a group they belong to, not the actual people themselves or their individual actions towards you or others, while at the same time berating those people, who haven't done anything to confirm they have any prejudice at all, like you have, because you imagine they are doing exactly what you're actually doing and that's wrong? I'm not trying to be clever, there's no point really, you're too far gone anyway. I just find your inability to see the hypocrisy of your stance mind blowing. Personally I like to base my opinion of people as individuals on what they actually do, rather than decide that large groups of people are badduns just because they're members of a specific group. That's just me though, I don't hate anyone, life's too short for that shit. [emoji106]
  5. As you are choosing to hate Rangers fans. You weren't born that way. [emoji6]
  6. I have no skin in this game at all as I'm not a Rangers fan. But I've read this thread through and found it particularly humourous that your argument seems to be that all Rangers fans either hate or enable hatred of specific people because of what they are, rather than who they are (i.e. they are prejudiced or support prejudice) while at the same time quite clearly demonstrating your own hatred for Rangers and Rangers fans because of what you perceive they are, not who they actually are (showing your own prejudice). The juxtaposition is truly a work of art. Bravo, it made me smile.[emoji846]
  7. Was reading an article yesterday that had looked at the financials and thought COIN was overvalued by 81% at $250. Reckoned lots of people in early would make money off an initial pump, but that lots of people would get burned. Going to be interesting to watch. Saw it has fallen into a bear flag on the 1m right out of the gate. [emoji846]
  8. Kevin Clancy is one of the worst referees we have in Scotland. You're clearly at the windup. [emoji39]
  9. Boys going to be a player.
  10. Cricket score incoming.
  11. We'll know in the next few days I think. If the total AltCoin market cap moves further away from its previous ATH, or comes back down and double taps it. Best to have the bags packed.
  12. No, because Westminster currently holds around 90% decision making power as part of the UK "Union" where the EU is around 15% of its member states. Being a of the EU would not mean we get the government another country votes for. Not all Political Unions are analogous. Some are Unions of equals where small countries can have a voice, others, not so much. Besides, if the best argument for remaining in your Union is that the other Union is bad, the one you told us we'd never get into on our own anyway and we had to stay in your Union to be members of when you didn't think it was bad, before taking us out of that Union because that's a bad Union again, you've not really got much of an argument. FWIW, I'm open to a discussion on joining the EU post independence. I'm undecided on that front. I'm also all for hearing good reasons to stay as part of the UK, but they never seem to be forthcoming, all we ever get is semantic arguments about referendums.
  13. I know we like to do things differently in Scotland, but given no country/territory in the history of the world has ever gained independence from the UK then decided to go back to being subservient, I'm guessing that "leave and rejoin the UK every 4 years" wouldn't be much of an issue. But then, Unionists know this. Once they lose (and they will, eventually) they lose forever. That's why they make a big deal about referendums. Timescales/Generations/Anything Else is just a smokescreen. No idea why they feel the need do that dance. "We don't want one because it's not in our best interests to have one" is a perfectly reasonable stance in itself.
  14. Last couple of minutes summed that up. Good possession in the final third, good teams keep the pressure on, we make 8 passes to work the ball back to Hanley inside or own half who hoofs it aimlessly to their CB. Better second half at least. Frustrating that we finally have a collection of decent, more than capable players but we haven't actually looked any better in the last 3 or 4 games than we've been for a decade.
  15. Absolutely no doubt Aribo is technically brilliant with a football. I had reservations, well publicised, around the rest of his game from what I'd seen of him from November - about January, but he came onto a game for sure and finished the season looking a far more complete player, rather than a luxury player. The way he moves in that video reminds me a bit of Laudrup. Not saying he's that good! More that neither of them really relied on tricks to beat players. They make people look silly through really quick feet, technical ability, a dynamite first 5 yards and an uncanny ability to always be forcing defenders off balance. And that last bit doesn't happen by chance. Being able to force defenders to corkscrew themselves into the ground with body movement alone must have taken some amount of work.
×
×
  • Create New...