Discriminatory Singing Sanctions ââ?¬â?? Still no Clarity

[calscot 0]

Oh bugger - this is going to be long one�

 

perhaps the question is more "is it sometimes moral to do what the weighty majority think immoral?"

 

I agree, but you're mixing up opinion with reality. Democracy works on the idea that the will of the majority rules. I'm not advocating it, I'm recognising it.

 

the threat of punishment has never, ever, helped pre-empt a crime

 

Your argument sounds like rhetoric and is a fallacy, as you often point out.

 

I don't know what makes you think you are so right, I don�t think anyone can know this for sure.

 

However I think you need to think about it a bit more. Discipline does not have to include a lot of punishment but it helps to have it as an ultimate sanction.

 

For example, a group of researchers tested a bunch of kids for empathy. The lowest score came from a young boy whose mother had a deformity where she did not have fully developed arms and legs. After much investigation, the conclusion was that she was unable to physically discipline (this doesn't necessarily mean "punish") her son which meant he got away with a lot of misbehaviour and as a result had very low empathy.

 

For a test was a button that they pretended gave their mother an electric shock. When the button was pressed the mother would shout "ouch!". Most kids who pressed the button were empathetic and caring about their mother's pain ââ?¬â?? some even crying. The kid I'm talking about just laughed and did it again. Now there may be many other factors but other results along with the researchersââ?¬â?¢ theories, were compelling.

 

You only have to watch those Nanny 911 programs to see that structure and discipline dramatically improves the empathy of children and they stop hitting their siblings and parents. Their whole attitude to others tends to change.

 

It makes sense to me and anecdotal evidence supports that someone who is brought up in a loving and caring but consistently disciplined environment is more likely to have developed a stronger sense of morality than someone who has had a free reign full of inconsistencies.

 

I think it boils down to the fact that if you suffer consequences you are more likely to contemplate morality and try to be moral. If you never suffer consequences then why even think about morals? That is why power corrupts - it lowers morality due to lack of personal consequences. That was the point of the film, "Hollow man".

 

However morality is a big subject that even the best philosophers in history cannot answer.

 

 

might isn't right. its just might

 

Which in the end makes it ââ?¬Å?rightââ?¬Â whether you like it or not. You're mixing ideology with reality. Again Iââ?¬â?¢m recognising it not endorsing it. Anyway aren't you being hypocritical by claiming to be the one to define what is right and what is not?

 

subjects should only be as loyal as the rules are fair. anything less is a dictatorship. your argument seems to be that because the sfa want it, and the sfa decide these things, then its fine for the sfa to do it.

 

You really are mixing up my opinion of ideology with my opinion of reality. It's the SFA's game and they make the rules. I'm not saying I agree with their rules but I can see the reality and the point of them.

 

its flowered with all sorts of references to "the majority" and "pushing the majority too far"

 

This was me trying to give a simplistic model as to what is happening. If you want to dismiss it as "flowery" then you will not get what I'm saying.

 

If a small boy keeps pushing and hitting a big boy who keeps telling him to stop, the big boy will eventually clobber him, and many independent people will find it hard to sympathise ââ?¬â?? do they lack compassion? It doesn't mean big boy is "right" and many others will see him as the bully as it's a big boy hitting a small boyââ?¬Â¦

 

but the truth is that there is no majority - there's media attention. i'm willing to wager if you ask your average person, or average football supporter who funds the sfa, whether its alright to call a referee a pie munching barsteward, or the aberdeen fans sheep shaggers and they'll say there's no harm.

 

I think it depends who you ask. Many would object to the b and s words in themselves, so you could be dead wrong. Besides asking your "average" person about anything will elicit a knee-jerk personal opinion rather than a well reasoned posture. Ask them if we should reduce taxes, they'll say, ââ?¬Å?yesââ?¬Â then ask them if we should spend more on health and education and again they'll say, ââ?¬Å?yesââ?¬Â... Ask a rich person if a 50% tax bracket should be implement and they'll say, ââ?¬Å?noââ?¬Â, ask someone who will never earn enough to pay it and they'll say, ââ?¬Å?yesââ?¬Â...

 

Anyway, your sticks and stones theory has many detractors. Verbal abuse has been shown to harm people psychologically. For a simple layman's example, if it makes you angry then surely the rise in blood pressure is physically harmful? Besides, if there is no harm then what exactly is the actual intent?

 

its a mixture of irrational press reporting and jobsworth administrators at the sfa making political points with their power.

 

Is it? Do theatres frown on mobile phones ringing due to the press? It's about enjoyment. Football needs to be inclusive, when you support a club you can't choose to go to another club because you don't like the abuse from some of the crowd. In most of society such behaviour is frowned upon. Some seem to think a football stadium is where they can let off steam in a way they can't in the rest of their lives. But who ever said football should be the place to do it? Does it happen in other sports?

 

So is it about harm or lack of enjoyment?

 

Do you really want to go to a match where fans make monkey noises at black players? What is the difference with sectarianism? You could extend to fattism etc but that's where it gets ridiculous. Let�s stick to racism, sexism and sectarianism for now.

 

The big debate will be what is sectarian and what isn't, but my belief is that if the more extreme OF supporters were a bit bigger and a bit cleverer then we wouldn't need the debate. They would be thinking, "ok, that's obviously not funny anymore and too much hassle, let's sing about something else to wind them up". The fact it hasn't yet happened, shows it's more than mere banter.

[craig 5,199]

wasn't that long by your usual standards calscot

[calscot 0]

There's still the second half which the system seemed not to like...

 

your posts are littered with new labour speak, and they are the middle-right. fallacy after fallacy about how "the rights of the moral majority" superseed "the rights of the trouble-making minority"

 

Talk about High horse, Mr Kettle. Mate, to be honest, I just don't think you understand my posts at all. You're looking to categorise and twisting the

words in your head to fit how you want it to look.

 

You are reading what you want to read, rather than what I am trying to say.

 

Maybe it's my fault in the way I communicate but you are definitely looking to judge before looking to understand. I'm incredibly disappointed in you. Maybe you see something you disagree with, and so are out to "win" your point but that's not what I'm trying to achieve here.

 

In fact, I'm no supporter of new-Labour or the old Tories BUT, who is to say either are completely wrong? Where is YOUR noble prize for how to create a utopia? I find that kind of twisted disparagement very undignified. After all you go on about, are you being "politicist"? - And getting it wrong, too. Stop trying to be so categorical, personal politics are far more complex than that and you it takes more than a couple of ââ?¬Å?floweryââ?¬Â sentences to gauge someoneââ?¬â?¢s politics ââ?¬â?? especially in a debate where they are making points, not extolling their philosophy.

 

there is no-one harmed by football banter[/b],

 

That is a bold statement to make and missed the point anyway. I may not be harmed by someone who is loud and abusive, but that does not mean I accept them being in my company. Anyway, some people go beyond banter and take it very seriously, ultimately resorting to violence.

 

being a member of society is about more than blindly submitting to stupid rules, and calling everyone else who doesn't 'immoral'. with that kind of attitude there wouldn't have been anti-slave activists, or sufragettes. i've not seen one iota of compassion from you for the trouble-makers: whether this is the correct attitude or not, it is the conservative attitude. people do bad things Because They Are Bad. Badness Must Be Suitably Punished. right or wrong - these are burgeous right wing ideals.

 

Mate, you are twisting my points again and trying to make them black and whit. Also you are resorting to name calling, but I suppose I sometimes do the same.

 

I am not showing compassion for the trouble makers because that is not the point I'm making. The point is that there seems too much compassion for the trouble makers while they are playing the victim due to rules to stop their trouble making.

 

And as far as I know, punishment has been used in almost every culture, how do you think you can run a society without it when no-one else has been able to?

 

when rules are stupid, and deny legitmate freedoms they should be argued against.

 

That is true, but then these rules are only necessary after persuasion has failed. Would we really have anything approaching equal opportunities with laws to uphold them? Would workers have proper rights without our employment laws?

 

I think you are against rules as they restrict individual freedom, but you don't seem to realise we need them to bring order to society and allow some of that freedom. What would football be without rules? Even the much maligned off-side rule has a very important purpose for the sporting integrity of the game.

 

The trouble with the SFA rule, is not's its purpose but the lack of definition - but that is a different discussion.

 

as for the metasemantic side of the argument. the reason why we shouldn't have to change the word ****** to 'terrorist supporter' is because thats what it means. the worst sort of oppression is the irrational stifling of language.

 

just because certain sections of the media think the 'bouncy' represents the jumping on some catholic's head - should be just submit that this is indeed what it means and stop doing it, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary? its ridiculous. ridiculous things should be called ridiculous and treated as such.

 

You're missing my point of the metasemantics, which is many people DO mean Catholic when using the F word. In contrast I am sure pretty much nobody who does the bouncy is simulating stamping on someone's head. That is why one is contentious while the other is ridiculous. Seems obvious to me�

 

I think I may have expressed myself badly in haste in my first post, but I'm surprised that you have so readily gone to town to belittle anything I say and indeed showed undue contempt.

 

I don't claim to have any of the answers but I do try to see things from many different angles. I was merely pointing out the angle that I thought many seemed to have missed�

[calscot 0]

Ah it's post now...

[bmck 117]

i'll have a read through m8, but like i said in the last post, i wont be replying.