Aston Villa vs Newcastle United pre match thread

[algy]

It's not luck though, it's just shit play. Chelsea are mid table partly because they can't score many, as we saw with their shit finishing. Individual errors in defence against Leicester weren't luck, it was shit defending. Ollie scoring a lot now isn't luck, same as him missing loads earlier in the season wasn't luck.

Exactly.

Luck, like fate and karma simply does not exist.

Rolling a lot of different concepts into one there.

(Buddhistic pedant alert)
In arguing against luck and influencing outcomes instead by actions, you are getting close to describing karma, willed/volitional action.

You are probably thinking of karma vipaka, the fruit of the actions, but again I'm not clear you don't believe doing crappy things will not have crappy outcomes for yourself (you'll feel it on some level).

As to whether you are arguing against an inherent natural way of things, that acting more other regarding won't have positive consequences for yourself etc, well it's not my experience. 

Anyway, to adopt H&V vernacular, oh to 'funeral' the barcodes. They'll get reborn anyway.

Ah, this is the sort of thing I come to H&V for (and also Paul E's post, not quoted).

Luck is a tricky concept. Is it luck that makes, say, the Duke of Westminster wealthy? I mean, he didn't make a conscious decision to be the first born of the richest member of landed gentry in the country, did he? I'd be inclined to say that's just chance, or luck.

But equally, is it purely luck that has meant that the family as a whole are rich? Generations have literally just winged it and got richer and richer purely by chance? I'd be inclined to think that there's been some clever financial management somewhere along the way there, it's not just that the family keeps rolling double 1s on a craps table.

So even with the same concept, things can be luck in one respect and not luck in another.

I'd be inclined to say, for example, that if you buy injury prone players and they get injured, that's something that could've been predicted. If you get a freak injury, like Wesley's one against Burnley, that's luck (even though it was an intentional action by Ben Mee).

[Rory]

It's not luck though, it's just shit play. Chelsea are mid table partly because they can't score many, as we saw with their shit finishing. Individual errors in defence against Leicester weren't luck, it was shit defending. Ollie scoring a lot now isn't luck, same as him missing loads earlier in the season wasn't luck.

Exactly.

Luck, like fate and karma simply does not exist.

Rolling a lot of different concepts into one there.

(Buddhistic pedant alert)
In arguing against luck and influencing outcomes instead by actions, you are getting close to describing karma, willed/volitional action.

You are probably thinking of karma vipaka, the fruit of the actions, but again I'm not clear you don't believe doing crappy things will not have crappy outcomes for yourself (you'll feel it on some level).

As to whether you are arguing against an inherent natural way of things, that acting more other regarding won't have positive consequences for yourself etc, well it's not my experience. 

Anyway, to adopt H&V vernacular, oh to 'funeral' the barcodes. They'll get reborn anyway.

I don't have the best knowledge of all the different traditions, but I like to think karma can exist as a pretty secular concept, distinct from any notion of individual reward, punishment or justice.

It's a principle of cause and effect whereby, if you accept the coexistence and interdependence of all things, the 'effect' is felt by that body as a whole.

You could do something to hurt someone and never get caught for that action, but somebody still suffers. That is sufficient, as a concept. We are all made up of the same stuff, all bound by mortality, all trying to negotiate life on the same planet.

In a literal, individualistic sense, it can be developed to suggest that the person you have caused suffering to will sometimes transfer that suffering onto somebody else, and them onto somebody else, until it eventually comes full circle. So in the most simplistic sense: 1) a wealthy person exploits a poor person 2) who mugs a fellow poor person 3) who buys drugs to deal with the stress from a dealer 4) who is owed money by somebody who can't afford to pay 5) who goes out and steals the wealthy person's car.

Our sense of 'justice' will try to intervene, usually at the higher numbers (protect the wealthy person's car, imprison drug dealers, tackle muggers) and sometimes at 1 (establish systems and laws that aim to prevent exploitation), but it will not necessarily acknowledge the chain of cause and effect.

For me, karma doesn't deliver or demand justice, it just requires recognition of interdependence.

But such concepts have no business interrupting my laughing at Newcastle 😉

[pauliewalnuts]

Yeah.

[pablo_picasso]

"Luck" & "karma" are merely labels we place on events that are always explainable somewhere down the line. Hitting the post is called "unlucky". But it isn't. Its just poor accuracy from the shooter. An incorrect red card is called "unlucky" for one side & lucky for the other, but its just poor refereeing. As for "karma", we as humans tend to see patterns in life. We like to think that something good happening to a good person is due to good karma, yet we ignore when bad things happen to those same good people. We like to think that bad things happen to bad people, yet we ignore when good things happen to bad people. And most of the time, we don't even notice. We sometimes count the hits, yet mostly ignore the misses. Its selection bias, statistical fallacy, whatever one wants to call it. Religious folk do it all the time. Its a "miracle" when Mrs. Johnson survives her car crash. Ignoring the fact that she got in the car crash in the first place...

[RamboandBruno]

It's not luck though, it's just shit play. Chelsea are mid table partly because they can't score many, as we saw with their shit finishing. Individual errors in defence against Leicester weren't luck, it was shit defending. Ollie scoring a lot now isn't luck, same as him missing loads earlier in the season wasn't luck.

Exactly.

Luck, like fate and karma simply does not exist.

Rolling a lot of different concepts into one there.

(Buddhistic pedant alert)
In arguing against luck and influencing outcomes instead by actions, you are getting close to describing karma, willed/volitional action.

You are probably thinking of karma vipaka, the fruit of the actions, but again I'm not clear you don't believe doing crappy things will not have crappy outcomes for yourself (you'll feel it on some level).

As to whether you are arguing against an inherent natural way of things, that acting more other regarding won't have positive consequences for yourself etc, well it's not my experience. 

Anyway, to adopt H&V vernacular, oh to 'funeral' the barcodes. They'll get reborn anyway.

Ah, this is the sort of thing I come to H&V for (and also Paul E's post, not quoted).

Luck is a tricky concept. Is it luck that makes, say, the Duke of Westminster wealthy? I mean, he didn't make a conscious decision to be the first born of the richest member of landed gentry in the country, did he? I'd be inclined to say that's just chance, or luck.

But equally, is it purely luck that has meant that the family as a whole are rich? Generations have literally just winged it and got richer and richer purely by chance? I'd be inclined to think that there's been some clever financial management somewhere along the way there, it's not just that the family keeps rolling double 1s on a craps table.

So even with the same concept, things can be luck in one respect and not luck in another.

I'd be inclined to say, for example, that if you buy injury prone players and they get injured, that's something that could've been predicted. If you get a freak injury, like Wesley's one against Burnley, that's luck (even though it was an intentional action by Ben Mee).

Im not sure about luck or otherwise if we’re bringing  royalty and landed gentry into this, subjugation of the masses and all that.

Anyway….despite my assertion that we haven’t relied on luck lately, i have been known to say how unlucky Villa have been here and there over the years, hypocritical i suppose.

I think it will be a full on game and a full on atmosphere on Saturday, possibly a classic, its be 2-0 us and comfortable for the last three seasons, it’ll be a lot closer, hopefully with a bit of luck 3-2 to us.

[Risso]

Fuck my old boots, could somebody please start a punathon to stop the endless luck definitions?

[Rory]

Fuck my old boots, could somebody please start a punathon to stop the endless luck definitions?

Mine wasn't about luck, it was about karma. And helpfully it's been ignored 😉

[algy]

It's not luck though, it's just shit play. Chelsea are mid table partly because they can't score many, as we saw with their shit finishing. Individual errors in defence against Leicester weren't luck, it was shit defending. Ollie scoring a lot now isn't luck, same as him missing loads earlier in the season wasn't luck.

Exactly.

Luck, like fate and karma simply does not exist.

Rolling a lot of different concepts into one there.

(Buddhistic pedant alert)
In arguing against luck and influencing outcomes instead by actions, you are getting close to describing karma, willed/volitional action.

You are probably thinking of karma vipaka, the fruit of the actions, but again I'm not clear you don't believe doing crappy things will not have crappy outcomes for yourself (you'll feel it on some level).

As to whether you are arguing against an inherent natural way of things, that acting more other regarding won't have positive consequences for yourself etc, well it's not my experience. 

Anyway, to adopt H&V vernacular, oh to 'funeral' the barcodes. They'll get reborn anyway.

Ah, this is the sort of thing I come to H&V for (and also Paul E's post, not quoted).

Luck is a tricky concept. Is it luck that makes, say, the Duke of Westminster wealthy? I mean, he didn't make a conscious decision to be the first born of the richest member of landed gentry in the country, did he? I'd be inclined to say that's just chance, or luck.

But equally, is it purely luck that has meant that the family as a whole are rich? Generations have literally just winged it and got richer and richer purely by chance? I'd be inclined to think that there's been some clever financial management somewhere along the way there, it's not just that the family keeps rolling double 1s on a craps table.

So even with the same concept, things can be luck in one respect and not luck in another.

I'd be inclined to say, for example, that if you buy injury prone players and they get injured, that's something that could've been predicted. If you get a freak injury, like Wesley's one against Burnley, that's luck (even though it was an intentional action by Ben Mee).

Im not sure about luck or otherwise if we’re bringing  royalty and landed gentry into this, subjugation of the masses and all that.

Anyway….despite my assertion that we haven’t relied on luck lately, i have been known to say how unlucky Villa have been here and there over the years, hypocritical i suppose.

I think it will be a full on game and a full on atmosphere on Saturday, possibly a classic, its be 2-0 us and comfortable for the last three seasons, it’ll be a lot closer, hopefully with a bit of luck 3-2 to us.

Well, I was meaning it more that one thing can be viewed as both down to chance *and* quite intentional. Wasn't meaning it as particularly a comment on the landed gentry, that's just the first thing that popped in to my head where I could think of a situation which was both.

A less contentious one might be - is it luck that Emi Martinez has a world cup winners medal? I mean, had he been born in Chile he probably wouldn't have one. And he hasn't had any choice or influence on where he was born, that's pure luck on his part. But then it's his hard work & skill that has put him in the situation where he's Argentina's first choice goalkeeper. It's not a roll of dice at the craps table in that respect.

Edit: and I agree with Rory about karma. As with a lot of concepts you find in religion, I don't think they particularly need to be tied to the concept of a god/presence/lifeflow/...

[Rory]

"Luck" & "karma" are merely labels we place on events that are always explainable somewhere down the line. Hitting the post is called "unlucky". But it isn't. Its just poor accuracy from the shooter. An incorrect red card is called "unlucky" for one side & lucky for the other, but its just poor refereeing. As for "karma", we as humans tend to see patterns in life. We like to think that something good happening to a good person is due to good karma, yet we ignore when bad things happen to those same good people. We like to think that bad things happen to bad people, yet we ignore when good things happen to bad people. And most of the time, we don't even notice. We sometimes count the hits, yet mostly ignore the misses. Its selection bias, statistical fallacy, whatever one wants to call it. Religious folk do it all the time. Its a "miracle" when Mrs. Johnson survives her car crash. Ignoring the fact that she got in the car crash in the first place...

Your angle on karma is filtered through a Judeo-Christian prioritisation of individual fortunes, so the whole post is about 'luck', not karma - which is fair enough.

(Glenn Hoddle is one of the worst things to happen to Western perceptions of karma.)

[Rory]

It's not luck though, it's just shit play. Chelsea are mid table partly because they can't score many, as we saw with their shit finishing. Individual errors in defence against Leicester weren't luck, it was shit defending. Ollie scoring a lot now isn't luck, same as him missing loads earlier in the season wasn't luck.

Exactly.

Luck, like fate and karma simply does not exist.

Rolling a lot of different concepts into one there.

(Buddhistic pedant alert)
In arguing against luck and influencing outcomes instead by actions, you are getting close to describing karma, willed/volitional action.

You are probably thinking of karma vipaka, the fruit of the actions, but again I'm not clear you don't believe doing crappy things will not have crappy outcomes for yourself (you'll feel it on some level).

As to whether you are arguing against an inherent natural way of things, that acting more other regarding won't have positive consequences for yourself etc, well it's not my experience. 

Anyway, to adopt H&V vernacular, oh to 'funeral' the barcodes. They'll get reborn anyway.

Ah, this is the sort of thing I come to H&V for (and also Paul E's post, not quoted).

Luck is a tricky concept. Is it luck that makes, say, the Duke of Westminster wealthy? I mean, he didn't make a conscious decision to be the first born of the richest member of landed gentry in the country, did he? I'd be inclined to say that's just chance, or luck.

But equally, is it purely luck that has meant that the family as a whole are rich? Generations have literally just winged it and got richer and richer purely by chance? I'd be inclined to think that there's been some clever financial management somewhere along the way there, it's not just that the family keeps rolling double 1s on a craps table.

So even with the same concept, things can be luck in one respect and not luck in another.

I'd be inclined to say, for example, that if you buy injury prone players and they get injured, that's something that could've been predicted. If you get a freak injury, like Wesley's one against Burnley, that's luck (even though it was an intentional action by Ben Mee).

Im not sure about luck or otherwise if we’re bringing  royalty and landed gentry into this, subjugation of the masses and all that.

Anyway….despite my assertion that we haven’t relied on luck lately, i have been known to say how unlucky Villa have been here and there over the years, hypocritical i suppose.

I think it will be a full on game and a full on atmosphere on Saturday, possibly a classic, its be 2-0 us and comfortable for the last three seasons, it’ll be a lot closer, hopefully with a bit of luck 3-2 to us.

Well, I was meaning it more that one thing can be viewed as both down to chance *and* quite intentional. Wasn't meaning it as particularly a comment on the landed gentry, that's just the first thing that popped in to my head where I could think of a situation which was both.

A less contentious one might be - is it luck that Emi Martinez has a world cup winners medal? I mean, had he been born in Chile he probably wouldn't have one. And he hasn't had any choice or influence on where he was born, that's pure luck on his part. But then it's his hard work & skill that has put him in the situation where he's Argentina's first choice goalkeeper. It's not a roll of dice at the craps table in that respect.

Yeah, 'chance' is probably more helpful in this context than 'luck', which has an associated value judgment.

[Brazilian Villain]

For me, karma doesn't deliver or demand justice, it just requires recognition of interdependence.

But such concepts have no business interrupting my laughing at Newcastle 😉

Ah, a karma chameleon.

[algy]

"Luck" & "karma" are merely labels we place on events that are always explainable somewhere down the line. Hitting the post is called "unlucky". But it isn't. Its just poor accuracy from the shooter. An incorrect red card is called "unlucky" for one side & lucky for the other, but its just poor refereeing. As for "karma", we as humans tend to see patterns in life. We like to think that something good happening to a good person is due to good karma, yet we ignore when bad things happen to those same good people. We like to think that bad things happen to bad people, yet we ignore when good things happen to bad people. And most of the time, we don't even notice. We sometimes count the hits, yet mostly ignore the misses. Its selection bias, statistical fallacy, whatever one wants to call it. Religious folk do it all the time. Its a "miracle" when Mrs. Johnson survives her car crash. Ignoring the fact that she got in the car crash in the first place...

Your angle on karma is filtered through a Judeo-Christian prioritisation of individual fortunes, so the whole post is about 'luck', not karma - which is fair enough.

(Glenn Hoddle is one of the worst things to happen to Western perceptions of karma.)

I tend to follow Rory's version of karma here. I don't think it needs to be tied to a particular god/life force/... - you can have a secular concept where you have some kind of indirect benefit from being nice to others, because overall it makes the environment/community you live in nicer.
Same applies to a load of religious concepts I find. You can easily have secular versions of the same morality tales of you particularly want them.


None of this should detract from the fact that Newcastle getting relegated at Villa Park twice was funny as fuck, though.

[Rory]

For me, karma doesn't deliver or demand justice, it just requires recognition of interdependence.

But such concepts have no business interrupting my laughing at Newcastle 😉

Ah, a karma chameleon.

That's the point where religion *does* come into it: Villa, as the chosen people, must vanquish the satanic magpies.

[danno]

For me, karma doesn't deliver or demand justice, it just requires recognition of interdependence.

But such concepts have no business interrupting my laughing at Newcastle 😉

Ah, a karma chameleon.

Constant phenomena? or does it come and go?

[pauliewalnuts]

None of this should detract from the fact that Newcastle getting relegated at Villa Park twice was funny as fuck, though.

Yeah, but let's be honest, it wasn't so funny when we managed a 'comedy' relegation (ie pitiful points count) ourselves not that long after.

Ultimately, it's when you go down and nobody bats an eyelid that you need to be worried.