Dr The Singh Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 What has the world come to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skmanuk Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 What has the world come to! Hi doc, People should rejoice in their teams success, accept defeat with dignity, and enjoy life. There's no room for abuse, calling people scum, cvnts etc etc. Do people really "hate" others simply because they support another team, how sad! I really enjoy the informed discussion on this forum about tactics, team selection, transfers etc However there is a mindless abusive few who really need to get a life. Just my thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxfanazer Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 Hi doc, People should rejoice in their teams success, accept defeat with dignity, and enjoy life. There's no room for abuse, calling people scum, cvnts etc etc. Do people really "hate" others simply because they support another team, how sad! I really enjoy the informed discussion on this forum about tactics, team selection, transfers etc However there is a mindless abusive few who really need to get a life. Just my thoughts Think you need to lighten up a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 Hi doc, People should rejoice in their teams success, accept defeat with dignity, and enjoy life. There's no room for abuse, calling people scum, cvnts etc etc. Do people really "hate" others simply because they support another team, how sad! I really enjoy the informed discussion on this forum about tactics, team selection, transfers etc However there is a mindless abusive few who really need to get a life. Just my thoughts I agree, my daughter is a plastic Man U fan, cus her friends are, no way would I consider chastising her. However I does annoy me that people support such clubs just cus there good, not enough to shit on people's door step. Bigger problems in life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 When some Everton fans came on and banged on about how lucky we were for the point and how sh*t we are and similarly a few Stoke ones that were quick to disappear after we won I can get a bit too annoyed and call them all things under the sun, but generally the discussion is reasonably amicable. That's why Grandad is banned from this section of the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 I agree, my daughter is a plastic Man U fan, cus her friends are, no way would I consider chastising her. However I does annoy me that people support such clubs just cus there good, not enough to shit on people's door step. Bigger problems in life I'm sure the lad was being hyperbolic/sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chug Laguna Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 I'm 13 years old and I'll shit where I please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionheart Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 A mate of mine works down the club,reckons they are concerned about the amount of Man U fans that may be in home areas so if they openly support them they will be removed immediately to difuse the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 I'm sure the lad was being hyperbolic/sarcastic.Give me his address, I'm going to shit on his door step and spunk through his letterbox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarshallForEngland Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 I've continued with the same basic idea throughout: people who are uninvolved with a club should be viewed differently to those who are. That's it. The one change I made was to alter the terms I was using for the two groups so as to meet your criticisms. The content of my argument remains the same. I haven't moved the goalposts because the two groups I defined at the start are the same ones I'm going with now. It's only the names that are different. I've explained my 'involved/uninvolved' view enough times now and I'm yet to see you actually challenge it. Yet to see me challenge it? I have done nothing but challenge it but I will happily explain why you are wrong again. You appear to still not understand what the No True Scotsman fallacy means and why it is relevant to you. I will try again. See if you can see, by reading the original story that lends itself to the name of the fallacy, how it is relates to what you have been saying: "Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing." Do you see how, by way of analogy, this demonstrates how absurd your reasoning is? Particularly in light of the bewildering and irrelevant remark that you have carried on using your invented definition from start to finish, as if it makes any difference at all that you have been consistently wrong? The very act of defining what a "true fan" does is itself the moving of the goalposts. Please - I have explained this so many times - just tell me that you at least understand where the logical flaws lie in your argument? "Fan" already has a definition that does not depend on the sorts of things you insist are prerequisites for fandom. You have added several of your own caveats to the definition to make its meaning curtailed by your own criteria, and not by what the actual definition is. This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, except in this case it's "No True Fan" instead. I could not possibly make this any simpler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Eatfood Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 Yet to see me challenge it? I have done nothing but challenge it but I will happily explain why you are wrong again. You appear to still not understand what the No True Scotsman fallacy means and why it is relevant to you. I will try again. See if you can see, by reading the original story that lends itself to the name of the fallacy, how it is relates to what you have been saying: "Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing." Do you see how, by way of analogy, this demonstrates how absurd your reasoning is? Particularly in light of the bewildering and irrelevant remark that you have carried on using your invented definition from start to finish, as if it makes any difference at all that you have been consistently wrong? The very act of defining what a "true fan" does is itself the moving of the goalposts. Please - I have explained this so many times - just tell me that you at least understand where the logical flaws lie in your argument? "Fan" already has a definition that does not depend on the sorts of things you insist are prerequisites for fandom. You have added several of your own caveats to the definition to make its meaning curtailed by your own criteria, and not by what the actual definition is. This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, except in this case it's "No True Fan" instead. I could not possibly make this any simpler. No you couldn't but you could stop being such a bore. I don't care what fallacy you use to support your argument, for me and I'm assuming many others, there is a huge difference between someone who follows their club week in week out and someone who supports Chelsea, but would rather watch the Man City game as it'll be more exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxInTheBirstallBox Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 A mate of mine works down the club,reckons they are concerned about the amount of Man U fans that may be in home areas so if they openly support them they will be removed immediately to difuse the situation. Remember last season in the west stand forest at home, some shit shaft forest fan started jumping up and down when they scored and i went pretty bananas, he was quite far away but if he was closer i would have confronted….. i can see something happening at Manu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 Yet to see me challenge it? I have done nothing but challenge it but I will happily explain why you are wrong again. You appear to still not understand what the No True Scotsman fallacy means and why it is relevant to you. I will try again. See if you can see, by reading the original story that lends itself to the name of the fallacy, how it is relates to what you have been saying: "Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing." Do you see how, by way of analogy, this demonstrates how absurd your reasoning is? Particularly in light of the bewildering and irrelevant remark that you have carried on using your invented definition from start to finish, as if it makes any difference at all that you have been consistently wrong? The very act of defining what a "true fan" does is itself the moving of the goalposts. Please - I have explained this so many times - just tell me that you at least understand where the logical flaws lie in your argument? "Fan" already has a definition that does not depend on the sorts of things you insist are prerequisites for fandom. You have added several of your own caveats to the definition to make its meaning curtailed by your own criteria, and not by what the actual definition is. This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, except in this case it's "No True Fan" instead. I could not possibly make this any simpler. If there's one thing I can take from this discussion it's that I can be proud of how able I am to control my manners and conduct myself properly when faced with this kind of rudeness. You have consistently shown yourself to be an arrogant, unpleasant person with your consistent use of insults and attacks on me. I explained in my previous post (and in posts before that) that I had moved away from the idea that uninvolved people are not fans. You keep stating that this is my view when it is not. My view is that there are different types of fan within the umbrella definition we already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad the Fox Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 I'm 13 years old and I'll shit where I please It's alright at thirteen you get away with it while people tut at the parents. Do it as an adult though and your ****ed. For crying out load it was in a dog walk area, and I bagged it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 Yet to see me challenge it? I have done nothing but challenge it but I will happily explain why you are wrong again. You appear to still not understand what the No True Scotsman fallacy means and why it is relevant to you. I will try again. See if you can see, by reading the original story that lends itself to the name of the fallacy, how it is relates to what you have been saying: "Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing." Do you see how, by way of analogy, this demonstrates how absurd your reasoning is? Particularly in light of the bewildering and irrelevant remark that you have carried on using your invented definition from start to finish, as if it makes any difference at all that you have been consistently wrong? The very act of defining what a "true fan" does is itself the moving of the goalposts. Please - I have explained this so many times - just tell me that you at least understand where the logical flaws lie in your argument? "Fan" already has a definition that does not depend on the sorts of things you insist are prerequisites for fandom. You have added several of your own caveats to the definition to make its meaning curtailed by your own criteria, and not by what the actual definition is. This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, except in this case it's "No True Fan" instead. I could not possibly make this any simpler. No you couldn't but you could stop being such a bore. I find your argument pretty interesting, actually, but I still think you're wrong. Within categories there is huge variation. Substitute the word 'true' for 'decent' in your Scotsman analogy and the statement is perfectly sensible. I think there's a major difference, going back to that dictionary definition of 'fan' that you gave, between a 'devotee' of a team and the sort of fan who supports Leicester on one day of the week, and a more successful team on another. In terms of that fan's experience of supporting a football team the difference will be huge - like I said before, if you also supported Chelsea from 2001-2008 you would have been far less depressed than the rest of us! There are, in some cases, reasonable explanations for this: a man born in Manchester, from a family that supports Manchester United, but who is raised in Leicester, and goes to see Leicester as a teenager, with friends. But even then, his experience of being a football fan will not be comparable with that of most other City supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 I've continued with the same basic idea throughout: people who are uninvolved with a club should be viewed differently to those who are. That's it. The one change I made was to alter the terms I was using for the two groups so as to meet your criticisms. The content of my argument remains the same. I haven't moved the goalposts because the two groups I defined at the start are the same ones I'm going with now. It's only the names that are different. I've explained my 'involved/uninvolved' view enough times now and I'm yet to see you actually challenge it. I agree with your sentiment, and that people are getting hung up on what a 'fan' or 'true fan' is when the key distinction here is the contrast between a Man U / Leicester fan and a straight up Leicester fan. But I can't agree with your logic. Can't I be a fan of The Beatles or Shakespeare unless I'm involved with them? How involved do we have to be, exactly? Are we talking about buying tickets or merchandise, or making some noise on the terraces? Is an old boy who hasn't been able to go to see City for a few years suddenly an 'ex-fan'? There is a distinction between different types of fan, and a world of difference between a supporter like (if I'm right) yourself, and one who maximises their options by supporting Leicester City (or York, or Colchester, or anyone else) on one day, and then Man U when they need cheering up. You can both be fans, both be from Leicester, both be Englishmen and both be good, honest men - but one is going to have an unshakeable emotional bind to Leicester, and the other isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skmanuk Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 I'm 13 years old and I'll shit where I please Your a prat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Eatfood Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 Your a prat! Are you the manure police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 I agree with your sentiment, and that people are getting hung up on what a 'fan' or 'true fan' is when the key distinction here is the contrast between a Man U / Leicester fan and a straight up Leicester fan. But I can't agree with your logic. Can't I be a fan of The Beatles or Shakespeare unless I'm involved with them? How involved do we have to be, exactly? Are we talking about buying tickets or merchandise, or making some noise on the terraces? Is an old boy who hasn't been able to go to see City for a few years suddenly an 'ex-fan'? There is a distinction between different types of fan, and a world of difference between a supporter like (if I'm right) yourself, and one who maximises their options by supporting Leicester City (or York, or Colchester, or anyone else) on one day, and then Man U when they need cheering up. You can both be fans, both be from Leicester, both be Englishmen and both be good, honest men - but one is going to have an unshakeable emotional bind to Leicester, and the other isn't. Details like 'how much' or 'how often' don't bother me particularly. All I'm looking for is for people to continue with that long tradition of actually attending matches. Didn't think that would prove to be such a controversial idea with one person. Hope I haven't come across as someone who points the finger at anyone and everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suffolk fox Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 Two of my mates are United fans but have Leicester season tickets. Dicks! That maybe the two I saw queing up for season tickets when they went on sale? Two lads both wearing Man Utd shirts, I said to a bloke I was queing with typical eh now we are in the premier league it is to be expected. Both bought season tickets no questions asked? Got ridiculed by some on here for even suggesting opposition fans of bigger teams will now buy season tickets because we are Premier league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshy5 Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 That maybe the two I saw queing up for season tickets when they went on sale? Two lads both wearing Man Utd shirts, I said to a bloke I was queing with typical eh now we are in the premier league it is to be expected. Both bought season tickets no questions asked? Got ridiculed by some on here for even suggesting opposition fans of bigger teams will now buy season tickets because we are Premier league. New season ticket holders should've been prioritised based on the amount of games attended the previous season. That maybe would've reduced this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarshallForEngland Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 No you couldn't but you could stop being such a bore. I don't care what fallacy you use to support your argument, for me and I'm assuming many others, there is a huge difference between someone who follows their club week in week out and someone who supports Chelsea, but would rather watch the Man City game as it'll be more exciting. I could take issue with that but I shall happily grant you that there is a huge difference between those two things. So what? In your scenario, it is perfectly plausible for the individual in both instances to be a "fan". Your argument, when applied to the analogy in the No True Scotsman link I provided, is akin to saying "There is a huge difference between someone who is a rapist and someone who isn't". Nobody would argue with that but why should they? Both can be "Scotsmen" because the definition of "Scotsman" is not contingent on the savagery or depravity of the individual but on the specifics of his place of birth / ctizenship. Similarly, I can gladly allow you your above claim and you'd have advanced your argument no further; a "fan" does not need to do all the things some people on here say he needs to do to earn his fandom. You should care "what fallacy use" to support my argument because it demonstrates how weak and nonsensical yours is. If there's one thing I can take from this discussion it's that I can be proud of how able I am to control my manners and conduct myself properly when faced with this kind of rudeness. You have consistently shown yourself to be an arrogant, unpleasant person with your consistent use of insults and attacks on me. I explained in my previous post (and in posts before that) that I had moved away from the idea that uninvolved people are not fans. You keep stating that this is my view when it is not. My view is that there are different types of fan within the umbrella definition we already have. It is the last act of a factually bankrupt person to appeal to emotion like this, especially while patting yourself on the back for being so upstanding and stoic in the face of "rudeness","arrogance",and "unpleasantness". I have consistently and exclusively addressed every point made against my position and explained why your ideas are flawed. Whether or not you feel upset about my delivery is quite irrelevant. If you feel belittled, it is because you are beginning to recognise that you have got it wrong. This might be why you have now reduced your claim to the completely redundant and banal statement that "there are different types of fan within the umbrella definition we already have". Good luck finding somebody to debate that assertion with; let's not pretend that we have been arguing about whether or not all "fans" are the same all this time. Your argument has not changed in the way you say it has. You have just made your argument more terminologically similar to the textbook No True Scotsman example. You have personally decided that fans with certain characteristics are not "true" fans, and semantically that part of your argument has not changed at all. Again, to use the analogy in the link I sent you and implore you to read again, it is like saying "well all I am saying is that not all Scotsmen are the same". Obviously! But the phrase "true Scotsman" is a conclusion based on characteristics that are irrelevant to Scottishness, and the very nature of the word "true" refers specifically to authenticity. And the same goes for "true fan" - "true" is based on criteria that are incidental to the definition of "fan" and entails a claim about authenticity based on irrelevant factors. You are wrong and you should rejoice at learning something rather than moan about being offended and refusing to accept that black is not white. Not only that, but why you get to decide what constitutes "true" fandom and what constitutes "plastic" fandom? Other than your own arbitrary personal biases, what can you possibly offer in the way of support for such a claim? For somebody who is apparently gravely upset by "arrogance", isn't your presumptuousness and sanctimony in telling other people whether you deem them to be true fans or not the absolute embodiment of hypocrisy? Apologies for all the quote marks; not my usual style of writing I must say. I find your argument pretty interesting, actually, but I still think you're wrong. Within categories there is huge variation. Substitute the word 'true' for 'decent' in your Scotsman analogy and the statement is perfectly sensible. I think there's a major difference, going back to that dictionary definition of 'fan' that you gave, between a 'devotee' of a team and the sort of fan who supports Leicester on one day of the week, and a more successful team on another. In terms of that fan's experience of supporting a football team the difference will be huge - like I said before, if you also supported Chelsea from 2001-2008 you would have been far less depressed than the rest of us! There are, in some cases, reasonable explanations for this: a man born in Manchester, from a family that supports Manchester United, but who is raised in Leicester, and goes to see Leicester as a teenager, with friends. But even then, his experience of being a football fan will not be comparable with that of most other City supporters. Interested to see where you go with this (bolded). Could you expand more on this idea? What would you suggest a "decent" fan is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 Interested to see where you go with this (bolded). Could you expand more on this idea? What would you suggest a "decent" fan is? You're missing the point here. Neither Scotsmen nor fans are homogenous. We are both Leicester fans, but within that our approaches to supporting the club are very different. The word 'true', in the sense in which it's being discussed, is usually open to interpretation. Much like the word 'decent' in my example. If people had said 'dedicated' instead of 'true', or I'd said 'law-abiding' instead of 'decent' then there would have been no room left for discussion. But here the word 'true' is used to make a concrete distinction: between a fan of one team and one team alone, and a fan of one and then another, much more successful team. The point being that the experience of the former is hugely different to the latter. When the club suffers, he or she suffers, while the fan who's sitting on Man U as a back-up option won't need to. The use of the word 'true', if you take it to mean 'loyal and faithful', is a sensible one. If a man has a bit on the side then, so long as he isn't married, there's nothing to say he shouldn't - but he isn't true, is he? So a fan can be a 'true fan'; can be 'more true' than another if he is loyal to, and dedicated to his team. And I don't wish to belittle those who have a bit on the side, but don't expect people who've been faithfully shackled to Leicester for twenty, thirty years to think much of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 You have personally decided that fans with certain characteristics are not "true" fans, and semantically that part of your argument has not changed at all. Again, to use the analogy in the link I sent you and implore you to read again, it is like saying "well all I am saying is that not all Scotsmen are the same". Obviously! But the phrase "true Scotsman" is a conclusion based on characteristics that are irrelevant to Scottishness, and the very nature of the word "true" refers specifically to authenticity. And the same goes for "true fan" - "true" is based on criteria that are incidental to the definition of "fan" and entails a claim about authenticity based on irrelevant factors. Not necessarily. 'True' can refer to loyalty and faithfulness as well as authenticity. So you can be genuinely, truthfully married without being true. And it's fine to call a guy who supports City on one day and Chelsea the next a 'fan', but if the word 'true' refers to your loyalty, dedication and commitment to your team, then you can't be a 'true fan'. In another context the word 'true' could be used to apply multiple associations; a man with lots of friends can be true to each of them, for instance. But this is measured by a standard - a social acceptance that it is fine to have plenty of friends. Why is that the case with friends but not women, and definitely not football clubs? Maybe it's to do with the fact that when Leicester play Manchester United on Saturday, a few people will have two clubs to pick between, two clubs to be 'true' to. And, should it all go wrong, they'll be crowing about Di Maria on MOTD while we're drowning our sorrows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 18 September 2014 Share Posted 18 September 2014 If I see a man yanited "fan" with an LE postcode actively cheering against his home team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.