European playoffs WC 2014 Qualification

[KC McElroy]

Countries are determined by land borders. How can blood come from land?

I could ask the same question about man boobs.

[rugs]

The law does not apply to facts. A cow is not a dog regardless of what the law says. I may obey the law and call a cow a dog when the law questions me, but it doesn't mean I agree with it. I'm not saying I will fight and draft petitions to make sure the Bosnian guy never wears a Swedish jersey again, however, I will acknowledge that he is not in fact Swedish as he has no Swedish blood.

A cow is a given name for an animal, so is gav and baghareh. If you call it dog, you are changing its name, not the animal.

The Chilean Sea Bass example I gave already shows that you can change the name of an animal.

That being said, you can disagree with the law and you can call Zlatan Bosnian, but it doesn't change the fact that he is Swedish.

[rugs]

So is electricity. Now let me see if you will stick your finger in an outlet as you don't consider it reality.

Actually electricity is not. It is in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri..._natural_world

Electricity is not a human invention, and may be observed in several forms in nature, a prominent manifestation of which is lightning.

[KC McElroy]

Actually electricity is not. It is in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri..._natural_world

An electric outlet is an invention. So is a bullet, knife, samurai sword and machete. If ever a law comes out that says these items will not hurt you, I will disagree with it and stick with reality.

[KC McElroy]

A cow is a given name for an animal, so is gav and baghareh. If you call it dog, you are changing its name, not the animal.

The Chilean Sea Bass example I gave already shows that you can change the name of an animal.

That being said, you can disagree with the law and you can call Zlatan Bosnian, but it doesn't change the fact that he is Swedish.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'd like to see some of these counter arguments pop up the next time we play qatar. Or the next time a PFDC member born and living outside Iran and having never set foot in Iran claims he is Iranian.

[PSGman#19]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'd like to see some of these counter arguments pop up the next time we play qatar. Or the next time a PFDC member born and living outside Iran and having never set foot in Iran claims he is Iranian.

Do you have an US passport?

[rugs]

An electric outlet is an invention. So is a bullet, knife, samurai sword and machete. If ever a law comes out that says these items will not hurt you, I will disagree with it and stick with reality.

But an electric outlet without electricity is of no harm. So you need electricity, which is not man made, for the outlet to be of any harm.

[rugs]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'd like to see some of these counter arguments pop up the next time we play qatar. Or the next time a PFDC member born and living outside Iran and having never set foot in Iran claims he is Iranian.

It's like the Fifa hejab discussion from a year or so ago. If I remember correctly you made the argument that even though people disagree with Fifa's decision, one must respect FIFA's laws and it was Iran that was in the wrong for not respecting the law and if anyone had any problems they should try and change the law.

In Qatar's case, even though some may disagree, it's the law that decides.

Iran has its own laws and so does Qatar and so does FIFA.

For Iran, it's not the Iranian born outside of Iran, never having set foot in Iran, that claims he is Iranian. It is Iran that claims he is Iranian. For example, that person cannot travel to Iran with a non-Iranian passport if their father is or was Iranian. Iran considers them Iranian and therefore must travel with an Iranian passport.

As for "blood", even Iran doesn't consider blood as a measure of being Iranian because if only your mother is Iranian and not your father, you won't be considered Iranian. There were talks of changing that law but i'm not sure if it ever changed.

Also in regard to "blood". If you are an Iranian man and marry a non-Iranian woman, she can become Iranian although she has no Iranian "blood".

[KC McElroy]

But an electric outlet without electricity is of no harm. So you need electricity, which is not man made, for the outlet to be of any harm.

Please also address the bullet, knife, samurai sword and machete.

[KC McElroy]

It's like the Fifa hejab discussion from a year or so ago. If I remember correctly you made the argument that even though people disagree with Fifa's decision, one must respect FIFA's laws and it was Iran that was in the wrong for not respecting the law and if anyone had any problems they should try and change the law.

In Qatar's case, even though some may disagree, it's the law that decides.

Iran has its own laws and so does Qatar and so does FIFA.

For Iran, it's not the Iranian born outside of Iran, never having set foot in Iran, that claims he is Iranian. It is Iran that claims he is Iranian. For example, that person cannot travel to Iran with a non-Iranian passport if their father is or was Iranian. Iran considers them Iranian and therefore must travel with an Iranian passport.

As for "blood", even Iran doesn't consider blood as a measure of being Iranian because if only your mother is Iranian and not your father, you won't be considered Iranian. There were talks of changing that law but i'm not sure if it ever changed.

Also in regard to "blood". If you are an Iranian man and marry a non-Iranian woman, she can become Iranian although she has no Iranian "blood".

You are in fact repeating exactly what I said before and what I am still saying. This isn't a criticism of laws but personal choices in regards to reality. I understand this is the law but I disagree with it as the law goes against reality. If a law says it's ok to shoot anyone wearing a blue shirt, I will accept it as the law but still be disgusted by anyone who acts upon this law and shoots random strangers in blue shirts as opposed to refraining from doing so based on their own personal decision (which will still be lawful as the law doesn't say you MUST shoot such people). As I said before, I don't plan on doing anything against this law to change it, I'm just voicing my disgust over it as it contradicts reality. It still doesn't mean people can't act according to reality and still not break the law (not choosing a national team other than the one they have by blood). My disgust isn't directed towards FIFA for having such a law, it's directed at the individuals who take advantage of such a law and in essence give a middle finger to their heritage and ancestry. All the other scenarios you gave were also about laws, which as I said is not my concern.
I realize this is becoming a long post but just to clarify my position consider this: You see someone stab and kill someone. The guy goes to court where lawyers will throw in all kinds of legal arguments around. Regardless of such legal arguments and the court outcome, nothing will change your personal opinion: based on reality, the suspect killed someone else.
Since this is a discussion between the two of us, and I have voiced my opinion (and not the law) about it, please give me your opinion about this scenario, regardless of what the law says: Is someone born outside of Iran to Iranian parents who has never set foot in Iran considered Iranian? Again, your opinion on it, not the law.

[Raptor]

Not the country whose blood he has.

What if a person receives a blood transfusion from a native being?

If a Swede (let us call him/her a descendant of the vikings) donates his blood to Ibrahimovic, does that suddenly make Ibrahimovic a Swede?

By your logic he will suddenly have Swedish blood in him, which makes him fully eligible to represent the Swedish NT.

[KC McElroy]

What if a person recieves blood transfusion from a native being?

If a Swede (let us call him/her a descendant of the vikings) donates his blood to Ibrahimovic, does that suddenly make Ibrahimovic a Swede?

By your logic he will suddenly have Swedish blood in him, which makes him fully eligible to represent the Swedish NT.

When you get a blood transfusion, do you consider yourself blood related to the person who has given you the blood? If so, then your answer is yes.

[rugs]

You are in fact repeating exactly what I said before and what I am still saying. This isn't a criticism of laws but personal choices in regards to reality. I understand this is the law but I disagree with it as the law goes against reality. If a law says it's ok to shoot anyone wearing a blue shirt, I will accept it as the law but still be disgusted by anyone who acts upon this law and shoots random strangers in blue shirts as opposed to refraining from doing so based on their own personal decision (which will still be lawful as the law doesn't say you MUST shoot such people). As I said before, I don't plan on doing anything against this law to change it, I'm just voicing my disgust over it as it contradicts reality. It still doesn't mean people can't act according to reality and still not break the law (not choosing a national team other than the one they have by blood). My disgust isn't directed towards FIFA for having such a law, it's directed at the individuals who take advantage of such a law and in essence give a middle finger to their heritage and ancestry. All the other scenarios you gave were also about laws, which as I said is not my concern.
I realize this is becoming a long post but just to clarify my position consider this: You see someone stab and kill someone. The guy goes to court where lawyers will throw in all kinds of legal arguments around. Regardless of such legal arguments and the court outcome, nothing will change your personal opinion: based on reality, the suspect killed someone else.
Since this is a discussion between the two of us, and I have voiced my opinion (and not the law) about it, please give me your opinion about this scenario, regardless of what the law says: Is someone born outside of Iran to Iranian parents who has never set foot in Iran considered Iranian? Again, your opinion on it, not the law.

You keep mentioning reality, but the reality is that Zlatan is Swedish. The reality is, for many countries including Iran, "blood" is not a determining factor for gaining citizenship. That is the reality.

The problem is, your reality is not a reality. Just like the "shooting people in blue shirts" is not a reality.

This idea of blood ties based on some arbitrary date of when a country become a country is not a reality either. Is Teymourian Iranian? The earliest his ancestors came to Iran would be 1607. What about Kaebi? His "blood" is Arab.

How about a non-Iranian women who marry an Iranian and under law becomes Iranian? Is she Iranian?

As for my opinion: People can be multiple things (Azari-Kurd) for example. That said, people can also be multiple nationalities. Given what you are discussing, tribe might be a better word to use than nationality given that nationality is based on law and not opinion. So as far as tribes go, people can belong to multiple ones. I believe the one they are closest to is the one they are.

So, if someone was born to Iranian parents and currently lives in the USA, they would be more American(tribe) in my view than Iranian. If they come back to Iran and live in Iran, then they would be more Iranian. Now these groups have branches down the chain, you can say "Iranian-American" or "Azari-Iranian" etc based on how and who you choose to group yourself with.

So in summary, Zlatan was born and raised in Sweden. He grew up as a part of that tribe. That is what is familiar to him. So the reality is, he would associate himself with that group more than he would with the group his parents once belonged to.

[rugs]

Please also address the bullet, knife, samurai sword and machete.

I don't see the relevance. You brought up electricity suggesting it was man made, which it is not.

But I guess you can say touching an outlet without electricity would be like touching a bullet, knife, samurai sword or machete. I imagine most people have touched one or the other and are fine.

[KC McElroy]

You keep mentioning reality, but the reality is that Zlatan is Swedish. The reality is, for many countries including Iran, "blood" is not a determining factor for gaining citizenship. That is the reality.

The problem is, your reality is not a reality. Just like the "shooting people in blue shirts" is not a reality.

This idea of blood ties based on some arbitrary date of when a country become a country is not a reality either. Is Teymourian Iranian? The earliest his ancestors came to Iran would be 1607. What about Kaebi? His "blood" is Arab.

How about a non-Iranian women who marry an Iranian and under law becomes Iranian? Is she Iranian?

As for my opinion: People can be multiple things (Azari-Kurd) for example. That said, people can also be multiple nationalities. Given what you are discussing, tribe might be a better word to use than nationality given that nationality is based on law and not opinion. So as far as tribes go, people can belong to multiple ones. I believe the one they are closest to is the one they are.

So, if someone was born to Iranian parents and currently lives in the USA, they would be more American(tribe) in my view than Iranian. If they come back to Iran and live in Iran, then they would be more Iranian. Now these groups have branches down the chain, you can say "Iranian-American" or "Azari-Iranian" etc based on how and who you choose to group yourself with.

So in summary, Zlatan was born and raised in Sweden. He grew up as a part of that tribe. That is what is familiar to him. So the reality is, he would associate himself with that group more than he would with the group his parents once belonged to.

I could address the other things you have mentioned including the 2nd post about bullets and knives but I wanna zero in on the bolded part. When you say they would be more American than Iranian, does that imply that you are acknowledging that they are in fact Iranian (although in your opinion not as much as they are American)?