It seems to me that an contradiction in the simplest form, can be amplified through the use of satire. As Webb proposes in the piece (how soccer ruining), he isnt claiming a moral lesson is present but he is more of implying a criticism of soccer almost in a ridiculous manner to shock the reader through repulsive damage but then affirms with whit, humor, and laugher that his entire piece is ironically structured to be more of a joke.
Being an born and raised soccer player, initially I was a little offended by his degrading choice of words especially the sexist comments of soccer being a girl sport. “Soccer is a sport for girls, because they are too smart to waste an entire day playing baseball and do not have the bloodlust for football.” This can be completely argued based on the fact that his own daughters all play soccer and in return, his family comes home completely happy. Why not say the same in comparing softball or baseball?
It can easily spark the fire in the bellies of liberal, religious, and soccer playing people. Through reading this piece I may rhetorically ask, is this article satirical or actually serious? Being an philosopher, he exerts the role of God on the world's beloved sport, which doesn’t really apply to he reason why soccer is ruining America. For example he says
“hands are divine, feet are in need of redemption.” so are feet the body part giving to us from Satan? Feet is what keep the human body stable and balanced. With this refined understanding of God's plans for his followers, he is socially critiquing the cancerous game of little league soccer.
He goes on to ask caustically, “What game, to put it bluntly, is so boring to watch…Soccer is the fluoridation of the American sporting scene.” this is far from valid because why else would millions of people around the world who love playing and watching soccer do so If it is indeed so boring because there is little scoring? Yes, because baseball is so very engrossing. His arguments are inconsistent, for example he writes “Soccer is as relentless as it is easy, and it is as tiring to play as it is tedious to watch.” this is the use of a litotes, because easy and tiring are opposites.
Ultimately, the authors arguments are extremely contradicting and lead the reader to question whether this man is having internal conflicts, is attempting to create a piece based entirely on the use of satire, OR if he is really trying to propose an philologically researched claim. His arguments are either completely against soccer and all people dedicated to it or he lightly tosses the fact into mid-air that his daughters play soccer even though it is, along with T.V. and video games, is the bread and butter of parenting. Is he criticizing his own parenting? Personally, I grew up playing soccer my whole life and it has taught me contrary to his belief of soccer being an advocate for feminism. The "boring" game has taught me quick thinking, foot skills, responsibility, and the dedication of an unit or team. His use of satire demands the truth slightly behind the humor applied to provide an minimum understanding of the subject. It leaves the reader questioning why this article was even published if all it was going to do was confuse or anger the public. With the use of satire it also provides an over exaggeration of a subject in order to keep the readers attention. Predominately, whether this was writing to get a comedic laugh or propose a serious idea, it suggests at least a small reason to explain the decline of American nationalism.
Being an born and raised soccer player, initially I was a little offended by his degrading choice of words especially the sexist comments of soccer being a girl sport. “Soccer is a sport for girls, because they are too smart to waste an entire day playing baseball and do not have the bloodlust for football.” This can be completely argued based on the fact that his own daughters all play soccer and in return, his family comes home completely happy. Why not say the same in comparing softball or baseball?
It can easily spark the fire in the bellies of liberal, religious, and soccer playing people. Through reading this piece I may rhetorically ask, is this article satirical or actually serious? Being an philosopher, he exerts the role of God on the world's beloved sport, which doesn’t really apply to he reason why soccer is ruining America. For example he says
“hands are divine, feet are in need of redemption.” so are feet the body part giving to us from Satan? Feet is what keep the human body stable and balanced. With this refined understanding of God's plans for his followers, he is socially critiquing the cancerous game of little league soccer.
He goes on to ask caustically, “What game, to put it bluntly, is so boring to watch…Soccer is the fluoridation of the American sporting scene.” this is far from valid because why else would millions of people around the world who love playing and watching soccer do so If it is indeed so boring because there is little scoring? Yes, because baseball is so very engrossing. His arguments are inconsistent, for example he writes “Soccer is as relentless as it is easy, and it is as tiring to play as it is tedious to watch.” this is the use of a litotes, because easy and tiring are opposites.
Ultimately, the authors arguments are extremely contradicting and lead the reader to question whether this man is having internal conflicts, is attempting to create a piece based entirely on the use of satire, OR if he is really trying to propose an philologically researched claim. His arguments are either completely against soccer and all people dedicated to it or he lightly tosses the fact into mid-air that his daughters play soccer even though it is, along with T.V. and video games, is the bread and butter of parenting. Is he criticizing his own parenting? Personally, I grew up playing soccer my whole life and it has taught me contrary to his belief of soccer being an advocate for feminism. The "boring" game has taught me quick thinking, foot skills, responsibility, and the dedication of an unit or team. His use of satire demands the truth slightly behind the humor applied to provide an minimum understanding of the subject. It leaves the reader questioning why this article was even published if all it was going to do was confuse or anger the public. With the use of satire it also provides an over exaggeration of a subject in order to keep the readers attention. Predominately, whether this was writing to get a comedic laugh or propose a serious idea, it suggests at least a small reason to explain the decline of American nationalism.