calscot 0 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 don't think people who don't go can criticise those who do. Surely that falls into some kind of formal fallacy... I disagree, there is nothing wrong with not going - and people have many reasons not to. There is something wrong in many eyes for someone who leaves so early - it's quite rightly considered poor behaviour and against general etiquette for watching a live performance. People can choose to behave selfishly but that does not put them beyond criticism by others in the slightest - even if they have not been in the same situation. Being a supporter is far different from being a customer. I customer is there to take something, a support is there to give something. Leaving in droves with 15 minutes to go is NOT supporting a team in the slightest and is an insult to the players when the same supporters criticise them later. It is also very distracting and annoying to those who ARE supporters and not just customers as well as angering them about how it is affecting the team they love. Not going at all is better for supporting a club than going and being a negative influence. I also think that people can make moral judgements of behaviour without being there themselves. Maybe some people have to ask themselves if they are a taker or giver. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,883 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Leaving in droves with 15 minutes to go is NOT supporting a team in the slightest and is an insult to the players when the same supporters criticise them later. It is also very distracting and annoying to those who ARE supporters and not just customers as well as angering them about how it is affecting the team they love. Not going at all is better for supporting a club than going and being a negative influence. I also think that people can make moral judgements of behaviour without being there themselves. Maybe some people have to ask themselves if they are a taker or giver. So a half empty stadium at the start of the game is better than a full one that emptys when a team is 4-0 down? I hardly think so. Empty seats throughout the whole game are a lot worse than just being empty for the last 10 minutes. People who go to games can also make moral judgements on those who don't bother going. FWIW, I do think that those who left early do deserve some level of criticism, but at least they made a hell of a lot more effort to support their team than those who didn't attend. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Surely that falls into some kind of formal fallacy... Yeah, but I only talk about logical fallacies when it suits me I disagree, there is nothing wrong with not going - and people have many reasons not to. There is something wrong in many eyes for someone who leaves so early - it's quite rightly considered poor behaviour and against general etiquette for watching a live performance. I'm not going to disagree that leaving-when-the-going-gets-tough is generally poor form, but another principle of the same sort argues that never arriving at all weakens your position to criticise. If I criticise someone for taking the easy option, say, of voting for Labour without thinking, I'd still be right if I myself never voted at all. But my argument would be undermined by justified charges of hypocricy. People can choose to behave selfishly but that does not put them beyond criticism by others in the slightest - even if they have not been in the same situation. Yeah, but that criticism is a lot easier to ignore. Being a supporter is far different from being a customer. I customer is there to take something, a support is there to give something. You can be a customer and supporter at the same time, but I see the point. Leaving in droves with 15 minutes to go is NOT supporting a team in the slightest and is an insult to the players when the same supporters criticise them later. Paying �£40 is also supporting the team in a way that saying if-I-was-there-I-wouldn't-have-left isn't. Moreover, your same argument - that the individual's criticism is independent of their own situation - should make criticism of the players valid who-ever makes it whenever it is made. It is also very distracting and annoying to those who ARE supporters and not just customers as well as angering them about how it is affecting the team they love. I'm not saying it's nice or fun. I'm saying, as I wasn't there, I'd feel stupid criticising them too harshly. Not going at all is better for supporting a club than going and being a negative influence. Yeah, the players and club benefit from your being there 'in spirit' more than they benefit from the �£40 and singing until the fourth went in.... I also think that people can make moral judgements of behaviour without being there themselves. People can do what they want, obviously, but it's hard to take them that seriously when they do. It's hard for me at least. Maybe some people have to ask themselves if they are a taker or giver. A person's sexuality is their own business... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Some fair comments but some are like saying we shouldn't criticise MP's unless we can bothered to get off our bums and get elected ourselves... Maybe we SHOULD be less critical of them? To me there is the fact that it would have taken some kind of effort for those who didn't go to get there. Most would have chosen to go if the circumstances were easier. It takes no effort at all to sit on your bum for 15 more minutes. Leaving was a consciously putting effort into the negative choice preference. Not going was probably not a preference for many except in the face of distance and financial pressure - a difference to me. I'm sure that many who did not go would have gone if they did not have to spend money and did not have to get off their arse. Those that left had that luxury and spurned it. It also has to be remembered that those watching on telly are raising about 5M for the club by doing so - not far off what will be raised by the gate money. I think we're all agreed though, that those who went and stayed to the end were the most supportive of all and deserve the most respect - and probably in a position to criticise. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,883 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 It also has to be remembered that those watching on telly are raising about 5M for the club by doing so - not far off what will be raised by the gate money. Whether someone watched on the game on TV last night or not had no impact on the cash we receive this season. I think we're all agreed though, that those who went and stayed to the end were the most supportive of all and deserve the most respect - and probably in a position to criticise. Agreed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Some fair comments but some are like saying we shouldn't criticise MP's unless we can bothered to get off our bums and get elected ourselves... Maybe we SHOULD be less critical of them? That actually is my view. But the other major difference is that obviously, the Rangers supporters weren't elected to represent us at Ibrox; they paid for that right. To me there is the fact that it would have taken some kind of effort for those who didn't go to get there. Most would have chosen to go if the circumstances were easier. It takes no effort at all to sit on your bum for 15 more minutes. It probably took a lot of effor for the people who did go to get there too. I mean, I would've stayed, but I've also left early (though always less than that) to stop my 5 min journey home on the subway turning into over 2 hours with queues. Although I just realised the other day I'd be home walking in half an hour so that's what I'm going to do in the future. Anyway, I would've stayed - I think staying is better than going - but I don't think I've got a right to get too jumpy-up-and-downy about it if I'm not there. Leaving was a consciously putting effort into the negative choice preference. Not going was probably not a preference for many except in the face of distance and financial pressure - a difference to me. You decided to stay at home; they decided to leave early. You're not going to comparatively psychologise here. Everyone's responsible for the decisions they make and work with internal and external factors invisible to others. Some maybe just couldn't watch, some have been disillusioned for a while. Some felt a crash coming on and had to make it back to the Walter Smith Disaster Support Group over at non-footie chat. It would've been better had everyone stayed, I agree, but I don't think their excuses will be that much worse than yours for not going at all. I think we're all agreed though, that those who went and stayed to the end were the most supportive of all and deserve the most respect - and probably in a position to criticise. Yup. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Fuck off and don't come back. You'll attract some strong criticism on here for that one Norris. In most cases I no longer know how to tell if a seat at Ibrox is occupied or not. You generally get no movement and no noise from the average bear to help make the distinction. Did they leave after 65 minutes or are still in their seats stoically refusing to act in a potentially discriminatory manner? Seriously, many gersnetters will fly their liberal credentials and defend to the death the right of every fan to leave whenever they choose to leave and for whatever reason they see fit. You pays your money and takes your choice. Of course, you and I know that's a utter tosh. Real fans don't practise their craft on a part time basis. Leaving on 65 minutes not only looks bad, it is bad. I wouldn't just advocate they don't come back, I'd have them hunted down and the words part time supporter tatooed on their forehead. There's far too much tendency to tolerate morons these days. In fact, there's far too much tolerance all round. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,883 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Real fans don't practise their craft on a part time basis. Real fans actually go to the games. :box: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norris Cole 0 Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share Posted September 30, 2009 Real fans actually go to the games. :box: I can't believe a good poster like yourself is willingly repeating this nonsense. I'll assume you're saying none of the millions of Rangers fans living abroad are real fans. While that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, I'd suggest it's a trifle harsh. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Real fans actually go to the games. :box: Yes, some of them probably do. I know a few real fans who watched the game out in Abu Dhabi last night - none of them could go to the game but they're still very much real fans of some fifty years standing and have each attended more games than the vast majorty to those who attended last night. :)So your point is what exactly? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.