Rugby Australia: A Cautionary Tale

[47MVEagle]

Whether there is nothing to back up his belief or not is a theological dispute.

I would say it should be within his prerogative to say such a thing, yes. Who would take him seriously?

So your measure of what a person should be allowed to say is simply based on whether or not anyone would take them seriously.

Cool.

I'm out.

I've been tolerating the non sequiturs you have been drawing from my stamens because I can't be bothered disputing them but that one takes the cake.

Oh Mighty "Stamens" pray do tell how what I inferred from your statement above was a "non sequitur" when I essentially paraphrased what you said?

Are you possibly trying to be too clever for your clogs?

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Lol, another 6 pages of this dribble. Hurry up and merge this thread with the others so I can continue to push my Satanist agenda!

 

[manlyfan76]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-down-and-suck-it-up-over-alleged-persecution

 

[manlyfan76]

Lol, another 6 pages of this dribble. Hurry up and merge this thread with the others so I can continue to push my Satanist agenda!

Feel free to push at anytime.

 

[47MVEagle]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-down-and-suck-it-up-over-alleged-persecution

I had no idea this was even a "thing".

Had I heard of it before today I would have thought it was a joke, ridiculous by definition.

To have seen people here claiming religious persecution against Christians as some sort of justification for good old Izzy to post sh!t about people online absolutely beggars belief!

You'd think Sydney had catacombs full of people drawing fish on the walls in chalk & hiding from the authorities for fear of being thrown to the lions in one of our few remaining non-rectangular sporting arenas.

 

[47MVEagle]

Oh pity us poor persecuted Christians...WAIT...look at that HORRIBLE HOMOSEXUAL!!! REPENT YE OR BURN IN HELLLLLLLLL!!!"

 

[eaglebuzz]

I've just realised I'm dealing with someone with a persecution complex who is more interested in using "whataboutisms" than actually discussing the subject at hand.

Quite rich coming from someone previously claiming anyone saying Folau had broken his contract was "naive & simplistic".

Just another person with their own agenda pushing their own barrow & not truly interested in freedom of speech.

Persecution complex. Wow. Well there's another non sequitur.

I brought up the hate against Christians on here because people are speaking about the importance of love and acceptance out of one side of their mouth whilst idly tolerating the calling of religious people "uneducated", "hateful", "idiots" who should be "burnt at the stake". As if what Folau did was self-evidently horrendous despite singling nobody out and being presented in a posture of genuine warning (Peter Singer's article on it was quite good). Meanwhile we have members of our forums actively stirring up hatred against a massive class of people purely due to their religion and nobody says boo. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Kevinward777]

Her defence on appeal is that it is within her right to freedom of speech to have told her boyfriend to kill himself & therefore she did nothing wrong.

Israel Folau is claiming his rights to freedom of speech & religion were infringed upon because he was sacked for saying gays will go to hell therefore he did nothing wrong (& is in fact the victim here).

Common sense is all that is required to see the two examples are poles apart.

 

[47MVEagle]

Common sense is all that is required to see the two examples are poles apart.

It was never used in comparison to the potential outcome of what Folau said, I posted it simply as a current example of "freedom of speech" being used as a flimsy defence to basically being a d1ckhead.

 

[eaglebuzz]

Oh Mighty "Stamens" pray do tell how what I inferred from your statement above was a "non sequitur" when I essentially paraphrased what you said?

Are you possibly trying to be too clever for your clogs?

Statements.

Every time I have said something you have taken an absurd corollary of it as though that was what I meant for all instances. It's lazy and gets the discussion nowhere.

Should people not being taken seriously be the grounds for determining the acceptability of speech? No. Should speech be granted freedom in as many situations as possible? Yes. Is intelligent contemplation and subsequent rejection of statements that are absurdly hateful the best way to handle them? Yes.

 

[47MVEagle]

Persecution complex. Wow. Well there's another non sequitur.

I brought up the hate against Christians on here because people are speaking about the importance of love and acceptance out of one side of their mouth whilst idly tolerating the calling of religious people "uneducated", "hateful", "idiots" who should be "burnt at the stake". As if what Folau did was self-evidently horrendous despite singling nobody out and being presented in a posture of genuine warning (Peter Singer's article on it was quite good). Meanwhile we have members of our forums actively stirring up hatred against a massive class of people purely due to their religion and nobody says boo. You can't have it both ways.

Now who's being too sensitive?

Were you coddled by society as a child or something?

 

[eaglebuzz]

Now who's being too sensitive?

Were you coddled by society as a child or something?

Just pointing out the double standard.

 

[manlyfan76]

You can't have it both ways

Like if i wanted to take my bosses money but go against their wishes / contract?

 

[47MVEagle]

Statements.

Every time I have said something you have taken an absurd corollary of it as though that was what I meant for all instances. It's lazy and gets the discussion nowhere.

Should people not being taken seriously be the grounds for determining the acceptability of speech? No. Should speech be granted freedom in as many situations as possible? Yes. Is intelligent contemplation and subsequent rejection of statements that are absurdly hateful the best way to handle them? Yes.

Should freedom of speech be free of consequences?

No.

 

[47MVEagle]

Just pointing out the double standard.

Because that deflects from Izzy being a d1ckhead, right?

 

[eaglebuzz]

Like if i wanted to take my bosses money but go against their wishes / contract?

That's a matter for the courts. He was primarily paid to play rugby.

 

[eaglebuzz]

Because that deflects from Izzy being a d1ckhead, right?

It proves that people are being selective about how they interpret speech as "hateful". If being a dickhead was a sackable offence there would be no rugby players left.

 

[Kevinward777]

Oh pity us poor persecuted Christians...WAIT...look at that HORRIBLE HOMOSEXUAL!!! REPENT YE OR BURN IN HELLLLLLLLL!!!"

So it’s fine for you to ridicule every person who professes to be a Christian... because Israel Folau posted that a bunch of people will go to hell if they don’t repent.

You’re posting that every Christian is a hypocritical bigot, and that’s perfectly okay. I don’t really care either way tbh... but it’s a perfect example of the inverted hypocrisy and self righteousness that Christians are supposed to be the masters of.

You claim inclusivity but preach division.

 

[manlyfan76]

That's a matter for the courts. He was primarily paid to play rugby.

He was the face of Rugby Australia.

 

[manlyfan76]

So it’s fine for you to ridicule every person who professes to be a Christian... because Israel Folau posted that a bunch of people will go to hell if they don’t repent.

You’re posting that every Christian is a hypocritical bigot, and that’s perfectly okay. I don’t really care either way tbh... but it’s a perfect example of the inverted hypocrisy and self righteousness that Christians are supposed to be the masters of.

You claim inclusivity but preach division.

TBH they ridicle themselves with the while "Faith" thing.