calscot

Oh bugger - this is going to be long oneââ?¬Â¦ 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. 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 donââ?¬â?¢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. 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? 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. 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¦ 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? 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. Letââ?¬â?¢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.

My optimism is that we make a great fist of it, a good chance of ending in our usual glorious failure, finishing a close third behind the two best teams in the world. But then consolidate our high FIFA rankings position and become a second seed for the UEFA championship qualifiers, by which time our best crop of young players for a generation have matured a bit, allowing us to qualify and do well...

PS I think some of the arguments about what is offensive could come under, "metasemantics". I thought I'd made that up but it does exist. But basically the way I see it words which are deemed offensive by some people who think it means one thing, are defended by those who use it and say that semantically it means, something else. But the defence about the semantics could break down if the alleged offender, means to offend by using the word to have the first offending meaning. After all, is his motivation to offend the other person? And if not why is he using the word at all? In the end is it not best for the alleged offender to use a less offensive synonym for the meaning he insists he is using? For example, if Rangers fans are not using Fen-ian to mean, "Irish Catholic", could they not have avoided being misinterpreted by singing, "We hate Celtic, terrorist supporters"?

I don't want to get too much into this as it could go on for pages and pages. The discussion then probably breaks down to the philosophical question, "Why be moral?" You can't make people moral by punishing them (although it often seems to help for some reason), but you also can't just let everyone do what they like without anarchy. The tools society have invented are a democracy where the majority vote for leaders who then dictate to the minority. "Might is right" and in this case, might is on the side of the EC, the UK government, UEFA and the SFA. It seems to me that you can't just leave people to behave themselves, too many don't, for some reason we need rules to discipline us and punishment to prevent repeated bad behaviour is the main "solution" we have. Due to behaviour which is not considered tolerable by the majority, the SFA have had to bring in some new rules. Unfortunately as with many rules it is difficult to make them black and white and where the line is has to be negotiated. It's contentious and controversial, but unfortunately deemed necessary by the powers that be. When the minority push the majority too far, the majority start using their weight and sometimes there is over-reaction. However is it not the fault of the minority for doing the pushing? I have no sympathy for people who are warned and warned and take no heed and then rules they don't like are brought in to deal with them. It's the well behaved majority who may suffer that I feel sorry for. PS If you think I'm paranoid or right wing Tory, then you're either fishing or in my opinion, have poor judgement of character...

Double post

I see my mistake, I opened the page in a small to medium sized browser and Latest news was at the bottom of the page... So I clicked on the headline to get to news page although the news text was also down the bottom of the previous page...

Sorry, I was using it as "totally stupid".

IE three clicks gets you there.

And then the link on the link...

It was written with a lot of irony. I find that people who use the phrase, "pc gone mad" are the ones who are confusing their ideals. The phrase is very ironic indeed and usually used in a very badly thought out argument. Great example, so many people complain about health and safety and then are outraged and in the courts if any tiny injury happens to them. Again the same people will complain when other religions have the temerity to self promote and disparage their own religion. They claim to have the right to do what they like but then get upset when a football association decides to do what they like and let in who they like. And yet most people have immigrant ancestry and others would rather be on the dole than work in low paid jobs like cleaning, shelf stacking and barwork. And ironically that is offending Christians, but ironically again, Christmas for most is more a homage to capitalism than Christianity. And yet some of the same people will beat someone up for singing something they find offensive.... That's the irony of it. In my opinion the moral traditions of this country have collapsed and I wouldn't quite blame a liberal mindset, more a mindset where kids are defended for their bad behaviour instead of admonished and educated, the I'm all right jack attitude and a complete lack of empathy for other and a dearth of any community spirit. Not at all, I don't know why that is relevant. I've always been for equality - REAL equality, but it's a word that is misused so often. I would agree it has played it's part. Although sometimes I wonder - with all these films and games portraying heroes who are the good guys and the good guys usually win, how come kids now, ALWAYS want to be the bad guy? I may be on a high horse and I do remember bad kids at school but I have no doubt that kids are the worst they have been in living memory. Worst ever violence in school. Highest levels of vandalism. Highest levels of STD's Highest levels of drunkenness. Highest levels of violence outside pubs. Highest levels of teenage pregnancies. Highest levels of car theft for joy riding. Kids are out of control and if you can't see that, then maybe you're the one in an ivory tower. But it's not just the bad kids, it's the lack of good kids. When I was a kid I was reasonably respectful of adult even if nothing more than that they were bigger than me. Now the amount of times where I've had abuse from kids or stones thrown at me driving my car or on my bike is unbelievable. I can't even walk past a kid without him trying to out-stare me for some reason. I've had two cars vandalised on three occasions and some kids ran over the top of another, I don't remember that happening to my parents. Their attitude stinks, I was picking up some rubbish - most probably dropped by kids on a roadside path and a teenage driver beeped me and flipped me off... That's the attitude of kids these days. Kids are so bad these days that I've decided completely against having any. Parents on here will be thinking their kids are fine and fair enough, but it doesn't stop all those other kids who get away Scot free with crimes every day then some adult hits them for it and it's them that gets done. Kids know this and that's one of the reasons they think they can do what they like. My whole point is that if people don't know how to behave in a civilised manner then they shouldn't be surprised when new rules come into force for the comfort, safety and enjoyment of others who do not want exposed to their behaviour. The reason the rules are coming in, is a reflection to me that it's a minority that misbehave. That's a relief. What the minority need to do is start their own FA and league where abusing the opposition is compulsory. That will give people a choice. There is a point there but I doubt you would want people in a party at your house, slagging off the other guests, mothers OR religions. You'd probably kick them out, and that's what football is doing. My question is why are people so desperate to do this at a football match, why do they think it is so big and so clever? Why do they even try to justify it? You can question the PC'ness etc but how about questioning the strange mentality of the people that simply HAVE to do it? It's almost like a collective Tourette's syndrome. Maybe I'm on a high horse but it comes from the frustration of wondering why people can't just try to get on a bit better and be a bit nicer to each other... There's so much anger, hatred and maliciousness in the world that causes most of our day to day problems. Why do people want to embrace it? It is no less unjust than deliberately causing offence in the first place and less morally bankrupt. In the end your argument seems to be that we should all do what we like, and I can see no argument form there in allowing the SFA to make their own rules, in which case, there is nothing for the anti PC brigade to complain about. Therein lies the irony.

£450k is a bit of an insult for Naismith. I've defended our low offers before but they are usually because the player has less than a year on his contract left. This time he has 3 years. With such a long contract, what leverage do we have to play hardball with Kilmarnock. I can only assume that the offer was a down payment with large add-ons if he establishes himself in the team. I don't know if he's worth 1.5M but to me he's definitely worth 1M, maybe a bit more. I definitely wouldn't want us to pay more than the mentioned 1.5M for him as there are a lot of more experienced players we could get for that kind of money.

Trouble is, that it's the complete nonces who think it's big an clever to bore people with their expression of their "political" and "religious" beliefs, who are 100% to blame. I'm also a bit sick and tired of those who go on about PC gone mad when it's the liberal attitude of letting people do whatever they like that has dramatically lowered the moral and civil traditions of this country. The younger generation have such a lack of empathy and decent values that I really fear for the future for the nation. It shows what a cretinous lot we have in our midst when we have to bring in more rules for decent behaviour at a football match. Why are we down on the prosecutor rather than the criminal?

I can see Miller being sold pretty soon... However, I think both the Old Firm need 5 strikers. Last season we had Boyd, Novo, Prso, Sebo, Buffel, Stanger, Ashikodi. Next season it's Boyd, Darcheville, Gow, Sebo, Novo and hopefully one other big signing...

Murray Park can never be a white elephant as it is also home to the first team squad for training. They used to train on a public park! And once the park was double booked!! With Rangers itself and the wages not so attractive these days, I'm sure Murray Park helps players decide that Rangers will be a good place to go, and it helps our image as a "big" club.

PS Naysmith did himself no favours with that gift he gave to the Austrian striker. McManus is very, very over-rated. Miller has been found out and I bet he'll hardly get a start from Celtic from now on. Scotland do not have the talent to play two strikers AND McFadden as left wing. With that defence, I predict Rangers will concede the least goals next season (again).

I prefer Super Ally's team, however, with possibly 7 Rangers players in the team, I think politics would prevent it - even though Webster and McCulloch are likely to be new signings. Can you imagine the whinging Tims? The thing is, right now Rangers are providing much of the best new talent, or buying up internationals. They are all therefore picks on merit and nothing to do with playing for Rangers per se.

Didn't score against Celtic. Also got sent off against us - and Aberdeen... The Tims should love except they'll be eating their words about Gow and Broadfoot. So far Celtic signings are: Brown MacDonald Killen Ours are: Broadfoot Gow Darcheville Not much difference...

Soccerbase has it as 19 goals in 29 games for Hibs. Scored both goals against us in the 2-1 defeat.

Yes but much higher than what he was on... Say 2 grand a week to 5 grand a week? Just making it up...

Scored 16 goals in 25 appearances for Hibs and 15 in 26 games for New Zealand. Must have been on a one year contract at Hibs.

He's 25, 26 in October.

Yes he was 5th equal in the SPL scoring chart with 13 goals.

PS I asked what people thought of him for Rangers about a month ago... Wouldn't really want him myself although don't think he's too bad.

Hibs striker from New Zealand, international player, young - about 24 and scored quite a few last season being about 5th top scorer. Used to play for Oldham. I'll have to check these stats.