Soccer Must Be Banned

The Manly Daily has been at the forefront of a campaign to ban teenage kids from jumping into the water off Manly Wharf and at Jump Rock (see above for rare footage of a an admirably performed backflip at Jump Rock).  It is, they say, for their ‘own safety.’  Sydney Ferries warned jumpers risked

‘being sucked up into the ferry’s large propellers, swept under the wharf and ripping their skin to shreds on the razor-sharp barnacles covering pylons or hitting their head and losing consciousness.’

It is not actually known how many people have been ‘sucked into the ferry’s propellors’, or have had their skin ‘ripped to shreds’ or have ‘lost consciousness’ but so serious is this crime that the police are now permitted to hand out $1,500 fines to these criminals (versus $200 for shoplifting).

We at the ALS wholeheartedly agree with the Manly Daily and support their campaign.  In fact, we cannot understand how soccer, a far more dangerous activity than rock jumping is still permitted in any civilised society.

The following is an extract from a press release from the ALS’s very own John Humphrys,

“The problem with soccer is that heading objects can cause brain damage. A number of peer-reviewed studies have shown that soccer players are more likely to have mild traumatic brain injury. In 1998, Dutch researchers showed that professional soccer players suffered from deterioration in memory, planning and visual-perceptual tasks.

“Obviously, this calls for government intervention. Initially we should introduce heavy taxes on soccer, introduce regulation to limit the number of times a person can head the ball, restrict soccer games to government approved venues and require soccer players to register with a mental health watch organisation. The long term plan should be to phase out and eventually ban soccer.

“We understand that some people still hold on to out-dated notions about individual freedoms, and would defend the right of people to make their own decision about their life choices and the risks they take. But safety is more important than freedom.

“Anybody who defends the freedom of soccer players is really just promoting brain damage. This issue is no different from the issue of smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods or riding a bicycle without a helmet. Freedom should not extend to any of these dangerous activities. People should only be free to do the things that the government approves. And if the government really does want to protect its citizens from themselves, then it should not allow soccer.”

Please sign up now and join our campaign to promote safety awareness amongst the young. Thankyou.

54 thoughts on “Soccer Must Be Banned

  1. Oh lord, how could I have been so stupid to enjoy my many hours on the soccer pitch? I must turn myself into the authorities

  2. i take it very seriously, fleeced. these kids must be stopped. soccer is lethal. would you let your kids repeatedly hit their heads against a brick wall?

  3. I was under the impression that they recently changed the type of ball that is used in soccer to one that is lighter than before at least in part because of these sorts of arguments. Personally, as someone that grew up with those leather balls that got water-logged, I’m sure it’s a good thing for multiple reasons.

  4. There is also another danger- you might be good at Soccer! Look at the degenerate lifestyle of David Beckham! He is using up more carbon footprints than I’ll ever generate, and he is ‘earning’ lots of money simply because he hasn’t been too brain-injured! Do we want our kids to suffer from such a lifestyle? Ban soccer for the Planet!

  5. I have seen soccer when the world cup was on and it was advertised a ‘football’ which was fraudulent, I mean they don’t even have a ball the right shape. The commentator referred to a guy dancing around in front of the guy with the ball as ‘tackling’ without even smashing him into the ground like a proper footy player would. It obviously originated as a gay bar game.

    Pommy makes a great point on the issue of disparity of penalties. Some of the heaviest penalties I have seen were put in place by the Nationals for breaches of marketing legislation. These were even more severe than for kids jumping off rocks. Of course the Nats were not being nanny staters at the time, they were just following their principles of regulating production, distribution, and exchange – you know, coalition laissez-faire.

    To be a tried and true nanny stater you really have to stop fun.

  6. Pommy, I was actually leading the crowd into the second part of my comment in an effort to get the thread onto the point I think you were making.

    I am not really prejudiced against soccer, I just find it boring apart from the fans. Actually its a good thought that perhaps the teams could be selected from the fans, they are more like footy players. In the recognized codes (AFL and NRL) the violence is on the field, so the fans get their fill of it during the game and don’t need to make their own.

    I shouldn’t need to point out to you that on field violence is far better as it is regulated, not like the unregulated violence by the fans. LOL

    This is probably why NRL and AFL fans are relatively couth and cultured like me.

  7. If there is anything I would ever ban and there isn’t much it would be soccer. It’s a boring sport, teaches kids that no result is ok and it seems to attract the most violent people as fans.

    Additionally the biggest thugs around the world seem to always like soccer.

    It’s truly one of the world’s most hateful, socialist attracting, thug loving sports ever conceived. Ban it.

    A recent report said that some doc wants to fat kids from their parents. I would do one better, I would remove kids from parents that forced them to play soccer.

  8. Thanks for the education, Jim! ‘Couth’ and ‘cultured’ obviously had the completely opposite meaning to what I have always believed. Live and learn!
    Pommy- of course soccer is a beautiful game- it’s played by nancy-boy ballerinos! Just give them short skirts to wear, and they’ll feel much happier! No wonder they prefer balls that curve in- they’re all bent!

  9. Fleeced — yes. I was called by a Perth-based radio station wanting to interview me about the press release. After a few comments, it became clear they had taken the press release seriously (despite the fact that it had “this is a joke” written on the press release).

    Thanks pommy — I was proud of that one. But you spelt my name wrong.

  10. Sam

    I would say the offside rule would have have been imposed by a socialist loving git. there is nothing as insidious in any sport than a socialist rule like the offside.

  11. Well, I’m referring to improper procedure during the maul, but it is like being within inside the ten metre line or both markers not square in league – a false start of sorts in both – and being inside the ten is considered “offside”.

    I think Soccer, like Hockey would benefit from the abolition of the rule.

    What I find amazing is that John got called up by people who thought he was serious.

  12. I would say the offside rule would have have been imposed by a socialist loving git. there is nothing as insidious in any sport than a socialist rule like the offside.
    It gives the ARs something to do 😛

  13. I think he was saying soccer was beautiful because the players are a bit gay. Presumably then Nicholas was saying that he thinks gay people are beautiful rather than saying he thinks gay are wrong. Although with Nicholas it’s often hard to know what he is saying. 😉

    Now what is all this about touching elephants?

  14. Gay is wrong because nature wants people to reproduce.
    OR, gay is wrong because God says it is.
    Or, gay is wrong because a soul has become fixated on one gender role, and changes the gender choice when incarnating so as to achieve balance between positive and negative; therefore, souls should live according to the current body, and not be influenced by past-life genders.
    Take your pick! As an esoteric Christian, I think the last explanation is true. (TerjeP did warn you that my beliefs were unusual, and he is right.)

  15. What if gay is right because it slows population growth?
    How do you explain homosexuality in the animal kingdom? (which to be fair we are a part of)

    p.s. there is no god (unless you can prove otherwise, which i doubt)… anyone who brings him up in a debate automatically loses.

  16. Why would nature, if there is no overviewing God, want to limit numbers? If there is a group-soul that looks after these things (can you say ‘Gaia’?), then why aren’t most people being born homosexual, instead of only a small percentage? (And who decides to slow population growth? Didn’t Darwin point out that an oversupply of rabbits soon corrects itself through ‘Law-of-the-jungle’ forces, as foxes and other critters help themselves to this bounty?)
    I believe that animals have souls, so there is no problem.
    God does exist, but he leaves us to learn wisdom through what we suffer on Earth, since we chose to incarnate instead of staying in Heaven. Physics points to God as the ultimate source of the Big bang. Some modern Cosmologists speculate that Chaos is the source of everything, but Chaos could not ‘choose’ to manifest, but would have to express every possibility. Therefore God has evolved within Chaos, outside of our ideas of time and space. God is thus the essential master of Chaos. Evolution demands it.
    Q.E.D.
    P.S. God always has the last laugh, so it might pay you to not be so dogmatic. I mentioned God so as to give me a list of three answers. Three is traditional.

  17. hmm im not a particular proponent of the “population limitation” theory myself.

    really though… homosexuality is obviously something that people are born with. if you’ve met any gay people in your life then it’s pretty undeniable. if you believe god made people (a laughable, ridiculous thing for anyone with a mental age over, say, 8 years old to believe) then why would he build homosexuality into their genes and yet still hate them?

    makes no sense… like all religious arguments.

  18. Nature doesn’t want or do anything. Genes evolve to reproduce and plenty of animals have evolved social structures in which only some males have a chance to spread the seed. Not every male lion gets to be head of the pride. But of course that does not tell you why we have evolved homosexuality, only that there are paralells.

    Also, I’m not sure whether any other animals have a tendency for a percentage of the population to be exclusively homesexual.

  19. does God hate gay people? How do you know god is not gay? Where, in all the stories, are the chicks he hangs with?

  20. http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-130.htm

    Interesting article of homosexuality as an adaptive, rather than maladaptive trait.

    Looking at insects we see that there are sexually non-productive “drones” that still benefit the community, development and progress of the species. It’s obvious, to me at least, that looking at homosexual behaviour as a maladaptive trait is taking a narrow view of things.

    As for the biological argument. Even as a “gay” man I’m not sold on it. Homosexuality (as opposed to homosexual behaviour) is a recent phenomena- in the past most instances of homosexuality were encountered in men that for the most part, behaved in a bisexual manner. I favour the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_Sexual_Orientation_Grid and I’m highly cynical of anyone that purports being either a 0 or a 6 on EVERY indicator.

    I personally believe the “I was born like this” argument is useful only insofar as it’s politically pragmatic. It’s un-PC to criticise something someone’s born with, but it’s much easier to criticise a choice. Personally I think people should be able to make their own choices- even if something as “important” as sexuality IS a choice.

  21. Whatever happened to the ‘gay’ gene? Someone once tried to claim they’d isolated it, but nothing more has been heard from them. If there was such a thing, then that would be proof you’d been born to it. Otherwise, it seems more like a choice. And several years ago, some study showed that if males were the last born in large families, they were more likely to be homosexual. That seems psychological- being forced into always obeying orders without being able to give them might be a mental straitjacket, conditioning you to be homosexual. I don’t know for sure, but it’s an interesting idea.
    And God will never be invalid. An ultimate Cause is always worth discussing. So is the ultimate end. ‘The Omega Point’, by Frank Tipler, discusses the ultimate fate of the universe, with God evolving from our own universe. Lots of physics books take God seriously, as do lots of physicists. Just because you gave up is no reason for the rest of us.

  22. As per Shems point 99% of ants will never reproduce and yet nature seems to favour them well enough.

  23. The studies are interesting, nicholas.

    I draw parallels between being gay and being intelligent. No-one’s been able to isolate and “intelligence” gene, but there are genetic factors at play. It does come down to your upbringing and your own choices too as to whether or not you end up as an intelligent person. It’s a mix of genetics, upbringing and choice. I think sexual preference (because it is just a preference- it’s not like I’m incapable of sex or relationships with women!) is similar to intelligence, it’s a mix of factors that lead a person to have a particular inclination and then other factors that help them decide if they want to act on their preference.

    What makes a person prefer asians or blondes sexually? There’s definitely biological factors (scent has been strongly tied to attraction), but there’s choice and background factors too (“I had a bad experience with an asian girlfriend” or “Blondes are such high maintenance” or “I’ve grown up around Caucasians and just can’t find black people attractive”).

  24. Soccer should be banned!!! Look at all the controversy it causes! And did we really need to know that Shem, as we can deduce from his last sentence, prefers gingers and brunettes? Too much info!!!!

  25. Ant and bee colony species are not quite the same thing because the queen produces both workers and new queens. The workers are part of the support system for the new queens. Not sure how gays and lesbians fit that mold.

    Perhaps you have something shem. Maybe homosexuality is an advantage in a society in which all men will have female partners and children. The dude on the side might help your children prosper.

    Some pretty warlike guys from the past were partial to gay sex. It is not really an effeminate thing in my experience. Not many of the gays I have known were queeny.

  26. I think many self-described gay people are bi-sexual, but the anti-gay attitude that has existed in the straight community has forced people to take an “all or nothing” approach, and this has pushed some bi-sexual people into the gay camp because that is where they are accepted.

  27. JC – It’s truly one of the world’s most hateful, socialist attracting, thug loving sports ever conceived. Ban it.
    .
    Oh voi.
    .
    Half French and half Italian and the guy says that. He’s betrayed you in the home country. Traitor!

  28. I think many self-described gay people are bi-sexual,
    .
    I don;t know how this ended up here. Be amusing to see it.
    .
    According to my experience a lot of bi-sexual people are either a. homosexuals who are still a bit in denial or b. heterosexual people inclined to experiment. Like everything else in human sexual matters that’s a generalization to which there are many exceptions.
    .
    Generally however people who engage in sexual activity with both sexes lean one way or the other. The difference is usually demonstrated when you ask them who they’d spend their life with.

  29. I don’t share your outlook John. I think the level of interest in sex with women amoungst homosexual men is comparable to the level of interest in sex with men amoungst hetrosexual men. If anything I think bisexuality amoungst men is a behavioural choice designed to integrate with a predominantly straight community. Of course human sexuality spans a broad spectrum and I have no doubt that some men a bisexual.

    As for female sexuality thats still a mystery to me. 😉

  30. I think it’s easy to put people into pigeonholes, but that life aint that black and white.

    Also, I don’t believe that a person’s sexuality is set in stone. Though genetically, the dice may be loaded a certain way, their ultimate preference will depend on circumstances/surroundings/etc…

  31. mmm…not sure about all this hypothesising about what causes sexual atttraction. you fancy what you fancy. hell knows why.

    for me, that means plenty of ‘junk in the trunk’ 🙂

  32. Agreed Pommy, I never really understand what makes gays so interesting to some people. I don’t know what makes them tick and am not really interested in finding out.

    They are really a non-issue.

  33. Touchingtheelephant,

    God no-where is quoted as saying he hates gays, that is, people tempted to commit homosexual acts. Giving in to such temptation is sinful, the same as fornication for the rest of us.
    And my point about reincarnation was my honest opinion on the matter. Karma is Kosher. The fifth chapter of Deuteronomy gives it away. And Jesus admitted that Elijah had reincarnated as John the Baptist; so all that talk of the next life being better might be references to next physical life.
    As for people with the mental age older than eight becoming atheists, I suppose all those scientists who are theists are either incredibly stupid and have been fooling us for years (Einstein expressed a belief in a God, as did Charles Darwin), or smart people become theists after nine.

  34. Incidentally, Time magazine has an interesting article on Faith and long life. It seems as though atheism shortens your life. I do hope you have some happiness in your shorter lives.

  35. Sabu, I read a bit in the bible once where god said he hates sodomy, but of course anyone can do that. But sure, scientists who are theists are clearly incredibly stupid about god at least.

    Nicholas, every Sunday morning not spent in mass is most assuredly a joy! but atheists only die younger on average cause religious nutters kill some of us.

  36. Pedro, watch out for the irreligious nutters! They also can kill you. Stalin and Mao spring to mind.

  37. Communism tried to substitute for religion, yes, but it had less staying power. And didn’t Marx the scientific prophet say that religion was the opiate of the working classes? (frown face)
    Q. How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb?
    A. None- they just won’t believe that enlightenment is possible!

  38. Pedro, my point at #45 is real- studies do show that going to church adds years to your life. Buy a current issue of Time to prove it. If atheism is so good, how come it shortens your life?

  39. Nicholas, just maybe atheism is also associated with other life span affecting behaviours. You need a proper study, correlation is not causation.

    Consider sodomites. They have a behaviour pattern that statistically leads to increased risk of early death. What proportion of sodomites are atheists as compared to the general population? Drug takers, heavy drinkers and so on. It seems you religious types get to add in the life expectancy stats for shakers, quakers and patchwork quilt makers. 😉

    It does remind me of Dawkins’ question about why the religious are keen to live so long. 🙂

  40. Just to have that last laugh, of course! And to prove that religion is good for life and afterlife!

Comments are closed.