Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Pablo Matera to fight for the survival of his International career?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cruz_del_Sur" data-source="post: 1011860" data-attributes="member: 55747"><p>Absolutely not, but the rest of the world is not part of that conversation. </p><p></p><p>Why would people care about what the rest of the world would take when both the sender and the receiver of the communication perfectly understand what is being communicated. </p><p>Let me elaborate a bit more because i find this important. Let make it simple. </p><p>A is Matera</p><p>B is his audience</p><p>C the subject (****** (in the argentine sense), bolivians, paraguayans, etc.) or someone who could be offended if his audience is not the subject</p><p>D is everyone else. </p><p></p><p>If A is saying something to B in a way that describes what he wants to express and in a way B understands exactly what A meant, why on earth would they adjust their vocabulary for D. If we are talking about C, sure, that is a valid argument, but for D? Hell no. </p><p></p><p>Cavani's post is an even better example</p><p>A: Cavani</p><p>B: His friend</p><p>C: lets say black uruguayans</p><p>D: everyone else</p><p></p><p>I guarantee you A, B and C all understood Cavani's message, Cavani meant no hard, his friend did not feel insulted and neither did black uruguayans. Should they change the way they communicate between themselves just because someone who wasn't part of the conversation (but has access to it) feels offended? </p><p>It's an interesting conversation, but intuitively i would say no. </p><p></p><p>I find extreme examples are the best one to illustrate arguments. Do you think a swastika tattoo means the same if worn by a white "insert nationality of your choice here" guy or a monk in Asia? I certainly wouldn't. Even if the monk is aware of the context with which that symbol has been/is used, i dont think it is fair to ask him to chance his ways because someone else feels offended when it is clear and obvious he had no intention to offend. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I understand your point. I think i didn't explain myself properly enough thou. I am not saying he should get away with it nor that he should because of what other people say (maybe i did but in that case i didn't express myself properly, so allow me to remedy that). This is what i believe</p><p></p><p>- What he did was wrong</p><p>- The punishment doesn't fit the crime here. </p><p>- This one is important. For me it is one thing if say, you come and tell me, "hey, what Matera did is terrible, you can't have people like that representing your country", and a very different one if someone who knowingly disregarded comparable comments from people who represent us at a much higher level. Congruence is important. The first is an argument i would like to sit down and discuss over a beer. I can see both sides of the coin and find it interesting. I don't have a definitive answer. And if you forced me to guess an outcome i would probably concede. </p><p>The second one is a very different story and a no brainer. It's like going after a 10-year-old with a lemonade stand because he ain't paying VAT under the banner of "that is not permitted by the law" while the same law enforcement agencies willingly and knowingly let murderers get away. Congruence is important, especially when the ones in charge of enforcing and the same ones doing the deed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cruz_del_Sur, post: 1011860, member: 55747"] Absolutely not, but the rest of the world is not part of that conversation. Why would people care about what the rest of the world would take when both the sender and the receiver of the communication perfectly understand what is being communicated. Let me elaborate a bit more because i find this important. Let make it simple. A is Matera B is his audience C the subject (****** (in the argentine sense), bolivians, paraguayans, etc.) or someone who could be offended if his audience is not the subject D is everyone else. If A is saying something to B in a way that describes what he wants to express and in a way B understands exactly what A meant, why on earth would they adjust their vocabulary for D. If we are talking about C, sure, that is a valid argument, but for D? Hell no. Cavani's post is an even better example A: Cavani B: His friend C: lets say black uruguayans D: everyone else I guarantee you A, B and C all understood Cavani's message, Cavani meant no hard, his friend did not feel insulted and neither did black uruguayans. Should they change the way they communicate between themselves just because someone who wasn't part of the conversation (but has access to it) feels offended? It's an interesting conversation, but intuitively i would say no. I find extreme examples are the best one to illustrate arguments. Do you think a swastika tattoo means the same if worn by a white "insert nationality of your choice here" guy or a monk in Asia? I certainly wouldn't. Even if the monk is aware of the context with which that symbol has been/is used, i dont think it is fair to ask him to chance his ways because someone else feels offended when it is clear and obvious he had no intention to offend. I understand your point. I think i didn't explain myself properly enough thou. I am not saying he should get away with it nor that he should because of what other people say (maybe i did but in that case i didn't express myself properly, so allow me to remedy that). This is what i believe - What he did was wrong - The punishment doesn't fit the crime here. - This one is important. For me it is one thing if say, you come and tell me, "hey, what Matera did is terrible, you can't have people like that representing your country", and a very different one if someone who knowingly disregarded comparable comments from people who represent us at a much higher level. Congruence is important. The first is an argument i would like to sit down and discuss over a beer. I can see both sides of the coin and find it interesting. I don't have a definitive answer. And if you forced me to guess an outcome i would probably concede. The second one is a very different story and a no brainer. It's like going after a 10-year-old with a lemonade stand because he ain't paying VAT under the banner of "that is not permitted by the law" while the same law enforcement agencies willingly and knowingly let murderers get away. Congruence is important, especially when the ones in charge of enforcing and the same ones doing the deed. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Pablo Matera to fight for the survival of his International career?
Top