Bit Rawkish this thread.
Using "passion" as an excuse is just so dipperish!
We should be bricking coaches, sitting on police vans, setting fire to the town hall, throwing people into fountains, but eh it's ok, it's just passion.
But as stated, no actual harm done. (this time)
I hope he feels it was worth it.
It’s Rawkish because many are defending him invading the pitch by jumping on an unaware Haaland from behind (he didn’t merely hug him, let’s at least be honest when we discuss it) because it was a moment of “passion” and arguing he shouldn’t face a ban, even though that was clearly the set consequence of entering the pitch, and he will have known that when he did it.Celebrating with a player by hugging them is fuck all like bricking a coach or setting fire to buildings is it?
But hey, he could have had a knife, couldn't he?
List everything Liverpool fans have done that you disagree with.It’s Rawkish because many are defending him invading the pitch by jumping on an unaware Haaland from behind (he didn’t merely hug him, let’s at least be honest when we discuss it) because it was a moment of “passion” and arguing he shouldn’t face a ban, even though that was clearly the set consequence of entering the pitch, and he will have known that when he did it.
Wanting to be able to do whatever you want (especially in the name of “passion”) without consequence—and becoming beligerent when that right is challenged—is the most scouse thing possible.
If people don’t want to be compared to dippers, it’s easy to avoid: don’t act like them.
No, you are saying that, and attempting to use a logical fallacy to attribute the argument to me.List everything Liverpool fans have done that you disagree with.
Then list everything fans of other teams have done you disagree with.
And of ours.
Now what you have is an extensive list of behaviours you disagree with versus one act, by one fan.
But you're trying to say that anyone who isn't bothered by this one fan, this one action, is on par with thousands of viewpoints from a fanbase that you feel excuses 'bad behaviour'. Essentially, using this as the basis for your moral standpoint which then reduces your argument to an appeal to emotions rather than facts.
Well no, that's essentially what your stance is which is probably why you have fired the same accusation at my response as you felt I was highlighting this. Kind of like how narcissistic defence mechanisms work.No, you are saying that, and attempting to use a logical fallacy to attribute the argument to me.
I am saying that people arguing that someone should not face consequences for doing something prohibited (that they knew was prohibited and knew had attached consequences for doing) because they were struck by “passion” are acting similarly to the Dippers they normally ridicule.
And that is exactly the case. Mine is quite literally an argument based on fact, in the face of one based on emotions (or “passion”).
Someone did something they knew was wrong, knew the consequences before they did it, and now must face those consequences.
Arguing against that is arguing that people acting in passion should not face consequences for their actions, whatever they are.
And that is very much a tenet of Dipper behaviour over the decades.
If you want to open the discussion to a much broader one about all the things you don’t like about scouse football fans than feel free, but I have no interest in participating.
You’ve just said nothing, with a lot of words, so it is ironic you’ve brought up narcissistic defence mechanisms. And are still making a completely different argument to mine.Well no, that's essentially what your stance is which is probably why you have fired the same accusation at my response as you felt I was highlighting this. Kind of like how narcissistic defence mechanisms work.
Where's your evidence for this if it's fact? It's mere opinion on your part which you're using to then apply emotion to backup your stance. Why choose only Liverpool fans to back up your argument when the argument you're making is based on behaviour shared by hundreds of other football supporters of all teams. Then pitting this against one action, from one fan as though anyone who isn't outraged by it shares the same belief system as fans who defend actions which are far more complex than this one, and are far greater in number.
I suspect the reason you choose Liverpool, or 'dippers' is because the supposed negative connotation attached to this would back up your viewpoint with the emotionally charged negativity required to express your views without the need for evidence.
It can't be fact and 'generally held opinion' simultaneously as you're talking about objectivity and subjectivity as though they are the same thing. The collective understanding of millions of kids is that Santa is real and comes down chimneys with gifts, this doesn't prove his existence.You’ve just said nothing, with a lot of words.
My argument is based on fact, based on generally held opinion that Liverpool fans—more than most other fan bases—believe they should be able to act in passion without consequence.
The evidence is the collective understanding, especially on this forum, of Liverpool supporters acting that way, which no reasonable observer would argue against. And the many posts in this thread effectively arguing that someone acting in passion should not face consequence (as you say, in this particular instance, which has to be applied to all instances, otherwise it is an especially invalid argument within logic and reasoning).
Yours is… I am actually not sure. Semantics, perhaps? Logical fallacy demonstration? Strawman argument construction?