Quote (DarkMarine @ Sep 12 2013 04:51pm)
Soccer is a popular activity. This does not mean it has any value. Any idiot who ascribes value to soccer because it is popular should also choose a Big Mac over chateaubriand, since McDonald's is more popular than a Union Square Cafe. Soccer Sucks, literally.. soccer is an activity that has a reflexive nature with violent, perverted people. Hopefully, this can cure some soccer fans of their problems, and help them move on with their lives and away from soccer.
Soccer, for the most part is a disgusting exercise. I'm proud to shed light on the terrible influence soccer has on the world. It appeals to violent hooligans and terrorists. It appeals to perverts. It appeals to fascists and Nazis. It appeals to self-important and self-hating freaks. If this upsets you, as a soccer fan, perhaps you should examine your premises and discover why you are a soccer fan. You will find something you don't like. A large part of the reason for this thread is to cure soccer fans from their disease. I'm here to provide informative links on how to wean oneself from soccer. I offer soccer fans access to real sports, so they may discover athleticism and competition.
Below you will see the reasons why soccer is terrible and isn't even considered a sport, more like a hobby (think chess, checkers, etc).
-Soccer participants are walking advertisements, nothing spells a desperate bunch of people more than this. Only Nascar can get away with this. Pathetic.
-Fucking France is successful at participating at soccer. That should say something, especially to the British.
-The "World" Cup is not the a World's Cup, but a competition among 32 countries, disproportionately allotted to European countries.
-Soccer is boring. Soccer is absurdly slow. I've had soccer apologists say with false pride how the average soccer participant "runs" 4 miles in a game. Newsflash: that means they are jogging less than 3 miles per hour. Translation: they are mostly standing around. BORING.
-Soccer participants act like they've been shot - what pussies. Meanwhile, real athletes like Donovan McNabb or Bobby Baun play on broken legs.
-Penalty kicks. You are determining a winner by a random event that has no relevance to the rest of the game. It would be as stupid as replacing extra innings with batting practice.
-Fruity penalty cards. How stupid is it to flash up some card to indicate the severity of a penalty? Richard Simmons was inspired to use them in his diet system. Are all penalties the same? Again, the inability to use the upper torso hampers soccer participants. Use hand signals, you troglodytes.
-Psychotic fans. The South Korean loser who set himself on fire is one example. The mental stability of the murderer who killed that one player because he sucked (free clue: all soccer participants suck) is another.
-Ties: 55% of games are ties. Ties suck.
-Why not use your hands? Or your brain?
-Soccer participants with one name. I can understand why your parents would disown any soccer participant, but they should take at least any last name.
-Soccer fans justify the activity based entirely on its popularity. Not only are the reasons why soccer is popular an argument against soccer, but it really shows how pathetic said activity is when that is the only argument soccer fans come up with.
-The correct term for 0 is zero, not nil. Take a math class.
-Soccer is not objective. There is no play clock. The game doesn't end after the clock has run down. This adds bias, subjectivism and appeals to lower intellects, and it destroys the drama from last second victories. Contrast such clumsy timekeeping (shame on the Swiss, who should know better) and the lack of any discernable strategy with the strategic precision of the two-minute drill in football.
-Soccer is not objective, part two. The lack of offensive chances leads to ties, which, as we know, suck. Soccer's "solution?" Let's randomize the result (in those cases where a tie suddenly becomes an affront, the "World" Cup) by having penalty kicks.
-Soccer participants on the same team have different jerseys. The obviously higher intelligence of hockey (goaltender) or football (offensive linemen) fans and referees is evident, since we don't need a different uniform to indicate a different privilege in the rule book.
-Soccer is Third World inexpensive. Ordinarily, this would not be a problem. Most people don't consider buying hockey or football equipment expensive in civilized countries, but in the context of the rest of the world, it is expensive. On the other hand, soccer is dirt cheap - and by dirt cheap, I mean slum kids in Brazil rolling up balls of dirt to kick around.
-Soccer apologists say the reason it is not popular in the US is because it wasn't invented in the US. First, soccer originated from the North American game called pasuckuakohowog several hundred years before the British played something resembling it. Second, basketball was the creation of a Canadian, yet is very popular in the US. Third, football was the creation of a Canadian, yet is very popular in the US.
-Soccer apologists say the reason it is not popular in the US is because the US is not any good at that activity. The US soccer team won the World Cup in 1991 and 1999 oh and they just won Gold the other day. Better find another reason.
-Soccer apologists steal terms from real sports. Hint: a pitch is something an option QB does. A draw is a running play designed to counter a strong pass rush. Football is a real sport that involves athletes in pads and helmets, not sissies playing kickball.
-Soccer has no honor. There are codes of behavior in sports like hockey, baseball, football and basketball. There is no code of behavior in the activity of soccer: the penis biting should make this fairly obvious.
-Soccer fans actually set themselves on fire. That's a pretty good barometer judging the mentality of soccer fans.
-Soccer cheering has no point. Football fans successfully cause opposing teams' offenses to call timeouts, use up the play clock, screw up audibles or cause procedure penalties. Ask Burt Hooton whether baseball fans affect an opponent's performance. Soccer? They sing songs - which all sound the same - regardless of outcome. It doesn't celebrate performance. It doesn't serve to intimidate. It has no purpose.
In closing, I would like to point out that it is a wonderful activity for amputees. Soccer eschews the use of hands or arms. While this prejudice destroys athleticism in most people, certain amputees will not suffer from this. Also, since soccer uses a small proportion of a person's body, the amputee without arms is on an even playing field with other soccer participants. Indeed, an amputee who participates in soccer may have the advantage over his appendage advantaged cohorts, since she (in certain cases) will never draw a penalty for using her hands. In no way should this suggestion dissuade men like Jim Abbott or Neil Parry to give up playing real sports - in fact they should be commended for their brave efforts and persistence.
Thank you all for your time. And please, this was not intended to offend anyone I'm simply here to discuss the truth about the difference of real sports, and activities for third world countries like Soccer.
Good day.
tl;dr
can only imagine though
football>hockey>baseball>golf>tennis>everything else>soccer