Excellent Article

[BC2 0]

Pretty sure something in similar vein could be levelled at Celtic. It isn't a one way street no matter how hard you try to make it one.

 

You may be 'pretty sure' but I'm sure as hell not.

 

Not saying it's a one way street, just that it's not 50-50.

[BC2 0]

Or like the journo you just linked to and completely bereft of evidence yet it still, in your eyes, "destroys a fallacy"

 

You seriously think that Spiers is unbiased ? I think not.

 

I don't think the sun shines out of his arse if that is what you are asking - he is no Hugh McIllvaney - but I greatly admire him for having the balls to go into areas conveniently ignored by the Scottish establishment for decades.

 

'Questions the fallacy' would have been a better choice of words. The fallacy had been destroyed in my eyes a very long time ago.

[craig 5,195]

craig - fair point.

 

In a court of law requiring guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, I accept that proving a case against Rangers is difficult. While you are not required to do this, however, may I suggest to you that proving their innocence beyond reasonable doubt would be nigh on impossible. There is equally absolutely no evidence that the scale of the problem is equal at the two clubs. There are few facts in this debate, but one that stands out to me is that nobody seriously suggests Celtic are the worse offenders here. The worst accusation seems to be that they are no better than Rangers. Am I reading too much into this?

 

I have stated my opinion, one supported by a former supporter of your club.

 

As there is no evidence to suggest that the problem is equal there likewise isn't enough evidence to suggest it is not.

 

I think you are reading too much into it.

 

I say that they are no better than Rangers because I know, and acknowledge, that Rangers have a problem (which is trying to be dealt with) hence I would not say that either party is any better than the other - I like to call it equitable treatment, but you see it as some form of acceptance that Celtic are no worse than an equal partner in the problem, not so.

[BC2 0]

BC2, go have a read in the huddleboard. Rangers fans are called every insulting name going.

 

And your point is...................?

[craig 5,195]

You may be 'pretty sure' but I'm sure as hell not.

 

 

OK, well to take your example....

 

I have a couple of friends who are Catholic brothers - one supports Celtic and one supports Rangers - so there is an example of Rangers fans loving catholics, and worse.... Celtic supporting Catholics.

 

Generalisations are there to be shot at....

[BC2 0]

As there is no evidence to suggest that the problem is equal there likewise isn't enough evidence to suggest it is not.

 

I think you are reading too much into it.

 

I say that they are no better than Rangers because I know, and acknowledge, that Rangers have a problem (which is trying to be dealt with) hence I would not say that either party is any better than the other - I like to call it equitable treatment, but you see it as some form of acceptance that Celtic are no worse than an equal partner in the problem, not so.

 

Don't quite follow you at the end craig. These things by their nature are very subjective.

 

Rangers deserve some credit for the improvements that have happened in the last year or so.

 

I have two main issues however, one with Rangers and one with Scottish society.

 

I am still to hear anybody from Rangers criticise Billy Boys because it is offensive and plain wrong - the fans have been asked not to sing it only because the club may be penalised by the authorities.

 

My other issue is that the authorities, media and Scottish establishment scandalously ignored your club's bigotry until UEFA highlighted it.

[BC2 0]

OK, well to take your example....

 

I have a couple of friends who are Catholic brothers - one supports Celtic and one supports Rangers - so there is an example of Rangers fans loving catholics, and worse.... Celtic supporting Catholics.

 

Generalisations are there to be shot at....

 

No, there is the very rare example of a catholic supporting Rangers, but there is no example of Rangers fans loving catholics.

[craig 5,195]

No, there is the very rare example of a catholic supporting Rangers, but there is no example of Rangers fans loving catholics.

 

I just gave you one. A practicing Roman Catholic Rangers fan, I would have thought, loves Catholics. Am I not explaining it well enough ?

[bmck 117]

No, there is the very rare example of a catholic supporting Rangers, but there is no example of Rangers fans loving catholics.

 

as a christian (despite my gripes with both protestant and catholic theology) i have every love for catholics.

 

if only they'd wash.

 

kidding.

 

i not only love catholics in general, but specific catholics such as my aunt and the entirity of my wife's family.

 

wtf are you talking about?

[bmck 117]

i may just be madwaeit, but this conversation seems surreal to me. do you honestly think that all rangers fans hate catholics, and all celtic fans are maganimous towards rangers fans? or at least more celtic supporters tolerate protestants than protestants tolerate catholics?

 

is that honestly what you're arguing? what planet are you on man. i'd venture that the people who actually hate each other know fuck all about their own supposed religion on either side.

 

you dont get rangers fans beating up celtic fans over the perpetual virginity and the implicit idolatary therein, do youu ffs? or celtic fans beating up rangers fans for forsakign apostle passed down tradition to elevate their own reason solely to the application of the bible?

 

the rangers and celtic fans that hate each other's 'religion' do so because they just hate people of a different sort. if there weren't a religious language to wrap it in, they'd still hate each other - hibs fans hate hearts fans and vice versa.

 

99% of people in ibrox or parkhead every other saturday are at best agnostic.