[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I however don't see what Zidane's opinion regarding the fact that I rather be insulted then kicked in the stomach is anywhere relevant. I'm sure he thinks differently, I'm sure you think differently.

Because that's when you brought up the Zidane example, because I stated I feel verbal aggression is less "damaging" to me PERSONALLY then physical aggression.

Simply to make a point that some people will feel different and thus making statements that this and that foul is worse than the other when they're both in the same category in the rulebook is quite silly. It is relevant, in terms of the discussion of "Spain's unsporting play being less bad than that of the Dutch", when they're both essentially just the same - intentional breaking of the rules. The obvious other side of the coin would be a person like Zidane saying he'd rather take a fist in his face than have someone insult his mother to him (if you know any moroccan-algerian type people fron Netherlands or France say, you'd probably know this. i've been involved with a few, and it's such a different culture by this, especially the mother subject).

This is why Zidane did what he did, and was punished for it - whatever Materazzi did should probably have been punished for too, since there's little doubt that it wasn't a very personal insult. The line of thought is, that, while physical violent conduct is very visible a way of breaking the rules, in that it's pretty hard for a ref not to spot a De Jong kick, the kind of intentional cheating players like Iniesta constantly do is really shitting on the game too.

That doesn't mean I don't think Zidane has a worthless opinion. You said "Zidane feels differently". Fair enough, that's his right. But I was talking about what I FEEL, not about what Zidane feels.

However, it's not a discussion of what you feel, as in, a discussion where what you feel (eg. what you feel insults the Dutch or whatnot) is the ultimate premise or truth. This is why it's important for the sake of a discussion or argument to bring more than just the subjective views of the debate on to the table. Otherwise it would hardly be a discussion in the first place since. If you simply want to let the world know how you feel, you're probably better off writing a blog and closing down the comments. Then people can read how you feel. However, forums, by nature, are a medium of discussion, and while you can "exchange thoughts about the weather" for a limited amount of time, it's never going to be very carrying on the long run.


It's far more intelligent to try reasonably argue the case from multiple perspectives rather than just the subjective one. When discussing the case refereeing in terms of "who should have and what", it's pretty easy to say that say Iniesta should've received at least one yellow card for obvious play acting, but none of this is mentioned because it's "okay to cheat the rules by play acting or unsporting conduct that doesn't result in direct physical injury", because "certain people feel so"; while they're both rules infrigiments and there are people for whom, truly, words can be more damaging than a kick.

I pretty much agree with Membri here.

Originally Posted by Membrivio

My final verdict: you cannot be saved.