Jump to content

 

 

Scepticism and the Rangers Fan Token


Recommended Posts

Similar to being sponsored by 32Red for me.  We are not as a club pushing people to gamble.

 

I'd prefer us to source sponsorship from more ethical companies but we can't ignore the potential partners that do want to spend money with us, simply because we don't care for what they sell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, stewarty said:

Similar to being sponsored by 32Red for me.  We are not as a club pushing people to gamble.

 

I'd prefer us to source sponsorship from more ethical companies but we can't ignore the potential partners that do want to spend money with us, simply because we don't care for what they sell.

If you have concerns about the ethics of Bitci then you should explain them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can see, Bitci has an impressive portfolio of partner deals and seems to be enabling Rangers to offers its fan base the same facility that many other prominent sports outfits are already signed up to.
 

Is Bitci a credible company? It looks that way or at least a lot of other people seem to think so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

If you have concerns about the ethics of Bitci then you should explain them.

Probably a poor choice of words as I was conflating investment/gambling which may not be entirely fair.  But ultimately you can only be sponsored by businesses that want to sponsor you, and so long as we promote their services in a reasonable way with the approprate caveats and disclaimers, then its ultimately down to individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stewarty said:

Probably a poor choice of words as I was conflating investment/gambling which may not be entirely fair.  But ultimately you can only be sponsored by businesses that want to sponsor you, and so long as we promote their services in a reasonable way with the approprate caveats and disclaimers, then its ultimately down to individuals.

Exactly. I might be uncomfortable with the basis of some sponsorships but I’m a lot more uncomfortable with the current trend to condemn and cancel anything we might have a personal issue with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Bill said:

Exactly. I might be uncomfortable with the basis of some sponsorships but I’m a lot more uncomfortable with the current trend to condemn and cancel anything we might have a personal issue with. 

I have no issue with people making ethical market choices. Everything’s a market. If you want to feel/be/signal your ethics through more expensive market choices, fair play to you. However, it’s worth keeping in mind it’s the less ethically comfortable markets that feed the world and have raised the poorest out of poverty. I just have suspicions that this trend towards ethical markets is an attempt to undermine the concept of open markets itself. Random musings. Also another way of looking down on people who can’t afford to make ethical consumer choices. But we are talking sponsorships so I’m ambling. It’s Friday, isn’t it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s no such thing as ethical investments, only personal comfort and preferences. But if there were, it would have absolutely nothing to do with being expensive or otherwise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bill said:

There’s no such thing as ethical investments, only personal comfort and preferences. But if there were, it would have absolutely nothing to do with being expensive or otherwise. 

Fair trade tea costs more than tetley’s. Chocolate grown by collectives cost more than Mars bars. And you just restated my point about personal comfort and preference as though you were disagreeing. I must be missing something. People are free to pay more for the comfort of conscience, so long as it isn’t for snide superiority over those who can’t afford to and consume the abundance capitalism makes affordable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re right, you do appear to miss the point. It isn’t about some things costing more than other things, which is hardly a revelation, but about the nature of ethics and whether “things” can possess some inherent quality that makes them “ethical”. 
 

You mustn’t become obsessed with the advantages and disadvantages of price and wealth, or I’m concerned you might accidentally stray into the fantasy world of “fairness”. Price and affordability have little bearing on value and none at all on ethics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bill said:

You’re right, you do appear to miss the point. It isn’t about some things costing more than other things, which is hardly a revelation, but about the nature of ethics and whether “things” can possess some inherent quality that makes them “ethical”. 
 

You mustn’t become obsessed with the advantages and disadvantages of price and wealth, or I’m concerned you might accidentally stray into the fantasy world of “fairness”. Price and affordability have little bearing on value and none at all on ethics. 

We can agree that one of us is. You seem determined to disagree on points we don’t really disagree on. I’d kindly return the advice you gave me the other day, and maybe read what I said more closely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.