Only a Game Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 You cannot pick and choose to suit yourself -- the example you quote means that you are happy for a relative to screw the working members of this board out of their hard earned cash when he should be in jail or at the very least repaying the money he owes to all of us. I'm not terribly happy about what he's doing but screwing the system is infinitely preferable to screwing my daughter. There's a difference in the moral standpoint there. I dont see what you find so absurd or unnatural about it. Most of us probably dont like non disabled people parking in disabled parking places. Morally its not right but do we grass them up to the parking wardens when we see it happening. No we dont. Most of us I am guessing dont like benefit cheats. I dont, but I'm not morally concerned enough about it to grass up a relative n particular. Most of us, probably all of us, dont like paedophiles or those who try and strike up a sexual relationship with 12 year old girls. Are you saying because we didnt do anything about the benefit cheat, we have to take the same view about a sex beast and turn a blind eye to it.? Thats what I'm hearing you say here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 That's the boy. Couldn't remember the first name and didn't want to say "Alan" ... Eric Carruthers was done for drunk driving and knocking down a traffic island ... his defence was he'd had "one or two pints of lager, to which he was not accustomed" ... Ah - I see - its fine if you neck pints of heavy cos you're used to it - but - woooo - don't try that bad boy lager stuff ... How times have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Ian Sneddon - who decided is was a good idea to expose himself from a railway carriage window at Perth Station to a female on the platform there. Drink was a mitigating factor in that particular incident if I remember correctly. Just a wee bit different to this present turn of events. Sneddon was not punished by the club if I remember correctly - but had to put up with quite a bit of stick from supporters for the rest of his Hearts career. Sneedons case was a pretty clear cut case of someone doing something really stupid as a result of having too much to drink and being egged on by other people. I suspect if he'd have flashed these days he might have received a more severe punishment by the Court. As it was, it was joked off with a nickname that stuck. At least it was his own tadger - CT allegedly sent photos of somebody else's. As for CT, he'll be lucky to get away with just being called "Beastie Boy" for the rest of his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I'm not terribly happy about what he's doing but screwing the system is infinitely preferable to screwing my daughter. There's a difference in the moral standpoint there. I dont see what you find so absurd or unnatural about it. Most of us probably dont like non disabled people parking in disabled parking places. Morally its not right but do we grass them up to the parking wardens when we see it happening. No we dont. Most of us I am guessing dont like benefit cheats. I dont, but I'm not morally concerned enough about it to grass up a relative n particular. Most of us, probably all of us, dont like paedophiles or those who try and strike up a sexual relationship with 12 year old girls. Are you saying because we didnt do anything about the benefit cheat, we have to take the same view about a sex beast and turn a blind eye to it.? Thats what I'm hearing you say here. The problem with the above is that you know what is right and wrong but won't apply it From what I am hearing from your answer is that you seem to imply there is a level of crime at which you are happy with but beyond that you will feel outraged. Now who decides the level at which morality kicks in ?, Do we all have the same cut off point ? We would prob all agree that murder is the worst crime and within that there are various types of murder -- do we mark them 1 to 10 in scale or just all murder (in this case is there a scoring sytem also -- is he deemed to be a peadophile or a sex pest or indeed a stupid idiot who should have known better) Same with crime in general -- Murder is a 10, Manslaughter a 9 etc etc to say Breach of the Peace as number 1 -- where on the scale do we start not to bother. I am aware of the differing views and again state my opposition to the stance taken but it does not blind me to the fact that it is difficult to pick and choose when to apply the morality test -- for years in society we have tried to find a solution to sexual crimes and it has proved impossible -- many of thiose convicted serve in shops we visit, live in areas we live in -- do we stop shopping there, do we throw them out of house and home and where do they go -- it is great to say I don't care but you cannot have them on the street despite what most might wish. This is not a personal arguement between members of JKB -- I just want to point out the difficulty when we take moral stances and do not apply it to the rest of our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chong Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Ian "Flasher" Sneddon Did Hibs Neil Sneddon not often have one eye out all the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Neil, as in Alan ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Did Hibs Neil Sneddon not often have one eye out all the time? Dean Shiels your thinking of there mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only a Game Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Now who decides the level at which morality kicks in ?, Do we all have the same cut off point ? You decide for yourself. Thats the beauty of having a fairly large brain for an animal of our size and a democracy and a civilised society in which you can decide where morality kicks in or where it simply doesnt matter a toss to you, or where it concerns you a little bit but doesnt make you angry enough to act. We dont all have the same morals or the same cut off point. Most of us probably think benefit cheating is a bad thing but not that many give enough of a toss to take some kind of affirmative action. I guess some people who benefit cheat would never dream of driving a car after a couple of pints too many. How do you explain the morals of that position ? Craig Thomson, has actually done nothing which really effects any serious part of my life. I dont know the girls concerned. His offence is more commonplace than most people would think or care to admit. If he didnt play for Hearts I probably wouldnt have heard about it and even if I did I'd have forgotten about it in the time it takes to turn to the next page of the paper. In fact the benefit cheat has probably done me more direct harm than Craig Thomson has or ever will. But it has made me angry, more angry than I am about the benefit cheat. How do you explain that apart from the fact that people are naturally different ? The fact is that things upset different people to different levels. People have different standards, different morals, different life styles Life styles that some people find abhorrent are perfectly natural to other people. Homosexuality for example. I'm not a homosexual myself but I'm tolerant of those with a homosexual lifestyle to the extent that I dont even wonder if someone is gay or not because it makes no difference to me. There are plenty of people who are not homosexuals who find the very thought of homosexual behaviour to be alien, disgusting to the extent that it should be illegal and homosexuals should be banished to some island where they can bum each other to their hearts content, anywhere as long as its not on their patch or within their narrow field of vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucky Thompson Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Did Hibs Neil Sneddon not often have one eye out all the time? Alan Sneddon you're thinking of. He had pontoon eyes, one eye sticks the other twists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 the best solution for all concerned is for CT to be moved on ASAP. Perhaps to Kaunus or the like. A nod and a wink about mitigating circumstances will just fester the wound. Hard to believe that so many on here have never noticed an unrepresentative number of flashers when it was all standing stadia or in the back seats of supporters buses. Or don't know about young Hearts players trying to 'engage' with the lassies from Tynecastle School that the club dealt with quietly. But I repeat CT should move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucky Thompson Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 the best solution for all concerned is for CT to be moved on ASAP. Perhaps to Kaunus or the like. A nod and a wink about mitigating circumstances will just fester the wound. Hard to believe that so many on here have never noticed an unrepresentative number of flashers when it was all standing stadia or in the back seats of supporters buses. Or don't know about young Hearts players trying to 'engage' with the lassies from Tynecastle School that the club dealt with quietly. But I repeat CT should move on. Totally spot on mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chong Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Alan Sneddon you're thinking of. He had pontoon eyes, one eye sticks the other twists. EASILY FORGETABLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valentinho Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 You talk some pish,its nothing to do with if anybody may have not lived their lives as little angels or have been on the naughty step and not been good as gold so stop this sanctimonious drivel that you've been spouting about facts and figures that you get off an Internet site before you come on here,Thomson should be out the door for what his acts or intentions towards those little girls were and stop trivialising the issue by calling people hypocrites because they are disgusted by his actions. Oh dear, on your high horse, are you??!! You are entitled to state your views, as am I, but there is no need to be abusive. To address your comments: (i) What is wrong with getting statistics off the internet?- university PH D's get the material for their theses from the net and, may I remind you, you have just posted your comments on the internet!! It is odd that you can use it, but I shouldn't. (ii) If you look at the first line of my post, I stated that I thought Thomson should have been sacked as well- so get your facts right and think before you post abusive comments. (iii) I was also not trivialising the Thomson affair - merely responding to a fellow poster's original question , which was "what will you morals stance be?".....awfie sorry mine's doesnae come up to your moral standard - seems you are a better person than I am. Before you or anybody else gives me any further grief over my views, let me make it clear that I think Thomson's behaviour is utterly reprehensible and the club should be ashamed of themselves for not terminating his contract. Regarding a moral stance, however, I will take any view I wish and defend it (you can and should do likewise)--we need not agree, but we should each respect the other's right to have their views and state them on a public forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coburg Hearts Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Alan Sneddon you're thinking of. He had pontoon eyes, one eye sticks the other twists. Was his nose ever burst? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.