Suarez 1...2...3

[Gamma]

i said i would not respond, but i could not help noticing how nuanced your reasoning has become .... exhibited a bit more below ... but anyway

to label the man a cheat because of the stakes involved WRONG! that is another fallacy created by you! as it is that one played out before millions of persons that is NOT what made him a cheat it was the FACT of what he did is why he is a cheat. the evidence of his cheat is there on video and that is the guy and the incident we are talking about.

I am glad that you mentioned the rules because they are what they are and the maximum penalty is what it is and the issue is not about his punishment or otherwise. the issue is whether or not he is a cheat irrespective of the punishment meted out because the rules do not take into account whether a plare stabs or shoots a player or only kicks him down, the prescribed penalty on field is a red card. his being a cheat has nothing to do with the penalty imposed, but everything to do with his actions.

an unwritten code? :laugh&roll: ... i leave that as it is for the self serving statement that it is. (as commonly understood by football) ... i hearken back to the definitions you provided above but which you seemed to have abandoned as it has become inconvenient, if not can you remind me which definition was the one was the one that said "in football" again. i may have overlooked it.

Sorry - but opinion is reserved for matters of far greater subjectivity. There is enough objective and empirical data to render a definitive judgement on Suarez's infraction to transcend opinion. as defined by you, and the unwritten code together with (as commonly understood by football) ... more jokes.

As for finding you a white paper study etc., get real! the lack of a white paper study etc (because none has been done) is definitive of what exactly?

[Paul Marin]

He he he...this is too funny. Gamma - go back and read the thread. Okay, one by one:

===

to label the man a cheat because of the stakes involved WRONG! that is another fallacy created by you![/I]

I remind you that you said:

all crimes are crimes but some are more heinous that others. his is second to maradona's only because uruguay did not win the WC.


secondly,

Paul: the only attempt you've made at putting forth an argument supporting calling the man a cheat is in tying the infraction to its implication to the World Cup.

Gamma: I need more than that??!!


Sorry boss, you created this fallacy, not me. At least we agree that it is fallacy.

===

what made him a cheat...was the FACT of what he did...his being a cheat has...everything to do with his actions.

Okay, I agree that actions are a key part of labeling a player a cheat. So I go back to what about his actions make him a cheat? When I gave you the definitions of cheat, you said:

Suarez alone ... 4., 5., and 8. 5 stands tall though and it is self explanatory.

NOTE:
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.

If it is 5 - then every player who commits an infraction cheats. FACT. You have not made any responsive argument to this purely logical and simple observation.

===

As for finding you a white paper study etc., get real! the lack of a white paper study etc (because none has been done) is definitive of what exactly?

Definitive of what? Giving you the help you so desperately need to make a lucid argument because you clearly aren't doing this yourself. To put this in plain English - if merely violating the laws of the game is "cheating" then every player is a "cheat". (Remember, this is the definition you chose).

The term "cheat" in football (yes - in football) is most commonly associated with "deceit". When there is no "deceit" there is a very little basis to call a player a "cheat". They may be other things, but "cheat" is not the appropriate word. Suarez made no attempt to deceive anyone. While you may be vexed at Ghana losing, your anger should be directed at Gyan for missing the penalty, not Suarez for keeping his team in the game.

[Gamma]

i see you are a frustrated lawyer ... all crimes are crimes but some are more heinous that others. his is second to maradona's only because uruguay did not win the WC. where in that do i say or imply that if it did not happen in a wrold cup game it would not have been cheating? if the cheating CHANGES the outcome of the game i say it is more heinous. the epiphany of international football is winning the world cup title so the outcome has more significance. therefore if it happened in a match where there the outcome doesn't matter, it is still cheating but where much rides on the outcome hence my label.

if merely violating the laws of the game is "cheating" then every player is a "cheat". (Remember, this is the definition you chose as it is the relevant definiton amongst the ones you provided and is factually consistent with what happened). and some are more .... heinous than others, don't forget that. perhaps if you provided a white paper or learned treatise on the definition "cheat" in football instead of relying on the "unwritten rules" you could make a more coherent argument.

you white paper argument is another fallacy ... is there a white paper proving your point?

finally based on the definitions you provided, (before you tried to move the target) cheat is ENTIRELY the appropraite word

[Peter R]

I tried to follow this discussion but found myself getting a little too tied up for a Friday evening:

I would only say that if I were in Suarez's position I would have done EXACTLY the same thing, and suffered whatever consequence came after, even being called a cheat...

What would you have done?

[Gamma]

i dunno, but if i did what he did then i would have to be prepared to live with the label of cheat.

[Paul Marin]

i see you are a frustrated lawyer ... all crimes are crimes but some are more heinous that others. his is second to maradona's only because uruguay did not win the WC. where in that do i say or imply that if it did not happen in a wrold cup game it would not have been cheating? if the cheating CHANGES the outcome of the game i say it is more heinous. the epiphany of international football is winning the world cup title so the outcome has more significance. therefore if it happened in a match where there the outcome doesn't matter, it is still cheating but where much rides on the outcome hence my label.

if merely violating the laws of the game is "cheating" then every player is a "cheat". (Remember, this is the definition you chose as it is the relevant definiton amongst the ones you provided and is factually consistent with what happened). and some are more .... heinous than others, don't forget that. perhaps if you provided a white paper or learned treatise on the definition "cheat" in football instead of relying on the "unwritten rules" you could make a more coherent argument.

you white paper argument is another fallacy ... is there a white paper proving your point?

finally based on the definitions you provided, (before you tried to move the target) cheat is ENTIRELY the appropraite word

Gamma, what on earth are you trying to say? Put it in plain English. If you are accusing the man of cheating, what is the basis?

I gave you an opportunity to define "cheat", you did not, so I gave you the dictionary definitions. You picked one; I showed it to be a flawed definition as it would characterize every infraction in football as cheating, and now you want to paint it as "[my definitions]". Come up with your own if you want, but don't try this sleight of hand business.

As I see it, if handball (to stop a goal) is cheating in a Sunday league game or a World Cup, then bringing in "the stakes" is a distraction to the discussion. So based on your prior statements, I surmise that your argument can only become: Suarez is a cheat because his infraction [changed] the outcome of the game.

By your logic, then every player who has EVER committed ANY deliberate infraction that "changed the outcome of a game" is a cheat, which by extension would therefore include every player under the sun as one could argue that any foul that results in a goal or denial of a goal can change the outcome of a game.

Therefore to single out Suarez as a cheat (for that infraction) is patently ridiculous, without merit and completely unfair. You are wrong and your argument doesn't foot. As I said, I will stand up and say i am wrong with lucid, logical and sensible logic, so far, you have not put forth anything that rises to that level. You is mi fren, but sorry, you are off the mark this time.

[Gamma]

you keep trying to paul marinise my statements .... Suarez is a cheat because his infraction [changed] the outcome of the game. HIS ACTIONS is what makes him a cheatand it is compounded by the fact that is changed the outcome of the game ...... maradona would still have been a cheat for what he did (DUH) .... if gyan had scored ... suarez would still be a cheat but there is someting more unpalatable when one benefits from cheating

therefore there are no cheats in football if there is no intention is to deceive ... how ludicrous is that?

how about, as long as the player is punished by the prescribed rules he is not a cheat .... it's like saying as long as a person who breaks the law is tried and convicted, he is not a criminal. that too is beyond ridiculous.

absurd!

[Paul Marin]

you keep trying to paul marinise my statements .... Suarez is a cheat because his infraction [changed] the outcome of the game. HIS ACTIONS is what makes him a cheatand it is compounded by the fact that is changed the outcome of the game ...... maradona would still have been a cheat for what he did (DUH) .... if gyan had scored ... suarez would still be a cheat but there is someting more unpalatable when one benefits from cheating

therefore there are no cheats in football if there is no intention is to deceive ... how ludicrous is that?

how about, as long as the player is punished by the prescribed rules he is not a cheat .... it's like saying as long as a person who breaks the law is tried and convicted, he is not a criminal. that too is beyond ridiculous.

absurd!

LOL!! "Marinise" - I like that.

Gamma, I remind you are the one accusing the man of being a "cheat", therefore the BURDEN OF PROOF is on YOU. You haven't made any argument proving your position in one clear statement, the closest is the above.

So, based on the above, you are saying "suarez is a cheat [because of] his ACTIONS'" i.e. handling the ball. Okay, then it therefore follows that EVERY PLAYER who handles the ball is a cheat. Simple logic. So if that is indeed what you are saying, then I submit that this is the absurd position, not mine.

[Gamma]

the definition of cheat ..... and his actions. even more simple logic. i started out by saying some are more heinous than others and his is up there.

EVERY football player who intentionally handles the ball is a cheat .... is closer to the truth and what is absurd about that?

[Paul Marin]

EVERY football player who intentionally handles the ball is a cheat .... is closer to the truth and what is absurd about that?

"Closer to the truth"? They either are ("cheats") or they are not ("cheats"). You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

[Gamma]

that was a direct response to your fallacious conclusion that: Okay, then it therefore follows that EVERY PLAYER who handles the ball is a cheat. WRONG! some handballs are unintentional ergo they are not cheating! so, given the context my statement that EVERY football player who intentionally handles the ball is a cheat .... is closer to the truth (than your fallacious conclusion) hope you understand now!

[Paul Marin]

that was a direct response to your fallacious conclusion that: Okay, then it therefore follows that EVERY PLAYER who handles the ball is a cheat. WRONG! some handballs are unintentional ergo they are not cheating! so, given the context my statement that EVERY football player who intentionally handles the ball is a cheat .... is closer to the truth (than your fallacious conclusion) hope you understand now!

Huh!!?? Why can't you just speak English instead of spaghetti? You either believe that EVERY player who has EVER handled the ball* is a cheat or you do not - simple. What is this "closer to the truth" nonsense? It looks like another attempt at giving your feeble argument legs. As Malcolm X used to say "make it plain".

===

* EVERY handball is intentional if it is blown by the ref; that is the law. A handball infraction cannot be given if it is unintentional. This was implied in my statement Okay, then it therefore follows that EVERY PLAYER who handles the ball is a cheat. In other words, I am only speaking of intentional because that is all that counts.

[Gamma]

* EVERY handball is intentional if it is blown by the ref; that is the law. A handball infraction cannot be given if it is unintentional. oh dear oh dear ... did you see pepe's "handball" against the usa at RFK stadium in 1997?

actually i was trying to be nice and diplomatic to you but i see you have no appreciation for that ... so here goes:

Okay, then it therefore follows that EVERY PLAYER who handles the ball is a cheat. this is not only a fallacy it is an outright lie as it does not follow!

it follows however that every player who intentionally handles the ball is a cheat. compare pepe's hand ball with suarez' goalie dive and tell me that both carry the same INTENT.

[Paul Marin]

* EVERY handball is intentional if it is blown by the ref; that is the law. A handball infraction cannot be given if it is unintentional. oh dear oh dear ... did you see pepe's "handball" against the usa at RFK stadium in 1997?

actually i was trying to be nice and diplomatic to you but i see you have no appreciation for that ... so here goes:

Okay, then it therefore follows that EVERY PLAYER who handles the ball is a cheat. this is not only a fallacy it is an outright lie as it does not follow!

it follows however that every player who intentionally handles the ball is a cheat. compare pepe's hand ball with suarez' goalie dive and tell me that both carry the same INTENT.

Gamma - you are hilarious!!! You are proving my point!!! I am saying that your argument does imply that EVERY PLAYER WHO HANDLES THE BALL IS A CHEAT (forget intentional, it is redundant). IF this is what you're saying then fine, but JUST SAY IT!!!

SO...

Okay, then it therefore follows that EVERY PLAYER who handles the ball is a cheat. this is not only a fallacy it is an outright lie as it does not follow! - THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!! TO SAY INTENTIONALLY HANDLING THE BALL IS CHEATING IS A FALLACY!!! Finally, you get it. All you have to do now is admit that by this revelation, Suarez cannot be called a cheat...wow!!

[Gamma]

HUH?!!!!!

yuh bold! intentional is NOT redundant it is exactly the point. yuh marinising again ... good try even if a little transparent. INTENTIONAL is not the same as incidental or even accidental! how can you even suggest otherwise.

a person who intentionally run yuh dung wid dem cyar is no more cilpable than if it was accidental? paul, please leave in tact whatever remains of the high esteem in which i held you ... the bobbing and weaving and omitting and inserting doesn't really give a good impression. i never said or intimated or even suggested that a mere handball qualifies one as a cheat in fact that is the fallacy... i have always said an intentional handball is what qualifies one as a cheat and gave examples. you want to say ALL handball is intentional once the ref blows ... that is not so. ask any of the FIFA refs.

"finally you get it" priceless my yute. that jedi mind trick is apt to be more successful on storm troopers ... too funny. if i neva read it for myself i would not believe you had the audacity to try it!