The pride jersey round.

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
  • We have been getting regular requests for users who have been locked out of their accounts because they have changed email adresses over the lifetime of their accounts. Please make sure the email address under your account is your current and correct email address in order to avoid this in the future. You can set your email address at https://silvertails.net/account/account-details
  • Wwe are currently experience some server issues which I am working through and hoping to resolve soon, Please bare with me whilst I work through making some changes and possible intermittent outages.
  • Apologies all our server was runing rogue. I managed to get us back to a point from 2:45 today though there is an attachment issue i will fix shortly. Things should be smooth now though
Status
Not open for further replies.

Red Pill

Enthusiastic Amateur
Honest question

How else should we view their actions? If it is against their beliefs (the jersey was about inclusion of all) would this not be homophobia?
I am glad you asked. ( I am not confident you will agree which is of course fine)
The decision is based upon the belief ( not mine btw) that the union between a man and a woman is sacred above all. This is likely linked to procreation…
The players by not agreeing to wear the jersey are not saying they hate, or dislike LGBTQI people which is what homophobia essentially means. They are just not willing to promote it due to the reason above, this is again not saying that they hate, dislike and cannot respect them etc as human beings. One of players mentioned he had a gay sister and of course he loves her.
In my opinion, is the above situation ideal? (NO) is based on hate? ( NO) is it based upon some form of ignorance? ( likely yes)
I don’t think this word ( homophobia) is appropriate for this situation at all as it only agitates the situation and certainly does not help anyone….. one should not fight ignorance with intolerance…
 

lsz

First Grader
Staff member
In 1975, South Australia was the first Australian State to decriminalise homosexual sex. But it wasn't until 1997 that Tasmania became the last state to decriminalise. A gap of 22 years ..

Then 20 years later Australia approves same sex marriage ...

This week the Mormon church said it will support the bill for same sex marriage in the states ..
This week the Pope came out in support of Gay rights and de-criminalisation ..
This week the Head of the Presbyterian Church spoke in support of Gay rights ..

Things are changing ... and ingrained social issues change slowly .. slower than you prefer ... but change for the better they will.

All the above has occurred without the necessity of depriving people of their civil liberties ... and through the continued education of people .. the process will continue, and gain pace of itself ... the coming to the party by the Pope and other religious leaders is evidence of this .... and without the need for draconian authoritarianism ..
Draconian? Please

The pace of change for some things should be quicker
 

lsz

First Grader
Staff member
I am glad you asked. ( I am not confident you will agree which is of course fine)
The decision is based upon the belief ( not mine btw) that the union between a man and a woman is sacred above all. This is likely linked to procreation…
The players by not agreeing to wear the jersey are not saying they hate, or dislike LGBTQI people which is what homophobia essentially means. They are just not willing to promote it due to the reason above, this is again not saying that they hate, dislike and cannot respect them etc as human beings. One of players mentioned he had a gay sister and of course he loves her.
In my opinion, is the above situation ideal? (NO) is based on hate? ( NO) is it based upon some form of ignorance? ( likely yes)
I don’t think this word ( homophobia) is appropriate for this situation at all as it only agitates the situation and certainly does not help anyone….. one should not fight ignorance with intolerance…
But this was not about the union? That race has been run and done
 

Eagles4Life

Bencher
Premium Member
Tipping Member
I am glad you asked. ( I am not confident you will agree which is of course fine)
The decision is based upon the belief ( not mine btw) that the union between a man and a woman is sacred above all. This is likely linked to procreation…
The players by not agreeing to wear the jersey are not saying they hate, or dislike LGBTQI people which is what homophobia essentially means. They are just not willing to promote it due to the reason above, this is again not saying that they hate, dislike and cannot respect them etc as human beings. One of players mentioned he had a gay sister and of course he loves her.
In my opinion, is the above situation ideal? (NO) is based on hate? ( NO) is it based upon some form of ignorance? ( likely yes)
I don’t think this word ( homophobia) is appropriate for this situation at all as it only agitates the situation and certainly does not help anyone….. one should not fight ignorance with intolerance…
Arguably @Red Pill , the situation has always been about homophobia hiding behind religion. Some (including myself) would argue in the affirmative on this position. However, I believe It is impossible to effectively argue against that concept (dearth of information), just as it is potentially impossible to sustain an effective argument in favour of the reverse position. Its why we are where we are.
As @lsz said How else should we view their actions? If it is against their beliefs (the jersey was about inclusion of all) would this not be homophobia?
 
Last edited:

Red Pill

Enthusiastic Amateur
Arguably @Red Pill , the situation has always been about homophobia hiding behind religion. Some (including myself) would argue in the affirmative on this position. I believe It is impossible to effectively argue against that concept (dearth of information), just as it is potentially impossible to sustain an effective argument in favour of the reverse position. Its why we are where we are.
As @lsz said How else should we view their actions? If it is against their beliefs (the jersey was about inclusion of all) would this not be homophobia?
Respectfully mate, I have explained my reasoning in my conversation above with @lsz
I would only be repeating myself. I don’t believe anything sinister is hiding behind religion. It is a sincere but naive interpretation..It’s ok to disagree..as you have indicated you believe the premise of my argument is impossible.. As you have likely learned from my posts I am a big believer in free will.. and I know you won’t start calling me a crack pot etc for my beliefs.. Cheers RP
 

Eagles4Life

Bencher
Premium Member
Tipping Member
Respectfully mate, I have explained my reasoning in my conversation above with @lsz
I would only be repeating myself. I don’t believe anything sinister is hiding behind religion. It is a sincere but naive interpretation..It’s ok to disagree..as you have indicated you believe the premise of my argument is impossible.. As you have likely learned from my posts I am a big believer in free will.. and I know you won’t start calling me a crack pot etc for my beliefs.. Cheers RP
Thanks @Red Pill Based on the information (or lack thereof) that is available publicly (from the player's perspective), it would seem to me to be impossible to argue it effectively either way. Perhaps that will change and we will get a better understanding of the players position over time.
 

Brookie Bob

"I come back to you now at the turn of the tide"
I don’t think this word ( homophobia) is appropriate for this situation at all as it only agitates the situation and certainly does not help anyone….. one should not fight ignorance with intolerance…
Agree.

Homophobia may be the go-to word for many on here, but if you want to gain a better understanding on the position of others, it may be time to discard these all-inclusive labels.

All the convenient, hackneyed, misused phraseology which has become de rigeur of today's intelligentsia needs a good overhaul. Blanket statements which put people in baskets, are desultory, and do nothing more than push even moderate folk back into a corner - with predictable results.

Think anything with 'phobia' or 'ist' (like misogynist etc) on the end of it - hurled at someone or some group you don't understand. The very folk who say, 'you don't understand the LGBTQI+ community' often have an intolerant and jaundiced view of anyone who does not show 100% vocal support of the LGBTQI+ community - and doesn't want to understand them. 'Us and Them' perpetuated.

We live in an information age, and we like to correlate the volume of our information with how enlightened we are. So like every generation we celebrate how emancipated we are. We have shaken off the shackles of the past. People who are religious are old-fashioned; at best, meddling do-gooders, at worst, hateful intolerant Fascists and probably pedophiles to boot. Yay for our new (non-religious) high moral ground.

Anyway - this is all very serious for a footy forum.

Time for some rainbow levity - if you dare:

 

Red Pill

Enthusiastic Amateur
Thanks @Red Pill Based on the information (or lack thereof) that is available publicly (from the player's perspective), it would seem to me to be impossible to argue it effectively either way. Perhaps that will change and we will get a better understanding of the players position over time.
Cool. I doubt very much though mate that the players motivations come from a place related to hate or contempt. I tend to assume the best in people before concluding the worst unless I have specific evidence…
 

Eagles4Life

Bencher
Premium Member
Tipping Member
Agree.

Homophobia may be the go-to word for many on here, but if you want to gain a better understanding on the position of others, it may be time to discard these all-inclusive labels.

All the convenient, hackneyed, misused phraseology which has become de rigeur of today's intelligentsia needs a good overhaul. Blanket statements which put people in baskets, are desultory, and do nothing more than push even moderate folk back into a corner - with predictable results.

Think anything with 'phobia' or 'ist' (like misogynist etc) on the end of it - hurled at someone or some group you don't understand. The very folk who say, 'you don't understand the LGBTQI+ community' often have an intolerant and jaundiced view of anyone who does not show 100% vocal support of the LGBTQI+ community - and doesn't want to understand them. 'Us and Them' perpetuated.

We live in an information age, and we like to correlate the volume of our information with how enlightened we are. So like every generation we celebrate how emancipated we are. We have shaken off the shackles of the past. People who are religious are old-fashioned; at best, meddling do-gooders, at worst, hateful intolerant Fascists and probably pedophiles to boot. Yay for our new (non-religious) high moral ground.

Anyway - this is all very serious for a footy forum.

Time for some rainbow levity - if you dare:


I love it @Brookie Bob
"At The Babylon Bee, we are not just fake news reporters. We are prophets. This sacred webpage depicts the hallowed collection of our fulfilled prophecies. Read on and be enlightened."

The Bee, or Not the Bee?​

Can you tell satire from real news? Truth from fiction? Awfully hilarious from hilariously awful? Take this quiz to determine whether or not you're a true satirical genius. For each headline shown, click on the Bee logo or the Not the Bee logo depending on whether you think it's satire or a real news headline.

 

Seagles68

Bencher
Premium Member
Tipping Member
I love it @Brookie Bob
"At The Babylon Bee, we are not just fake news reporters. We are prophets. This sacred webpage depicts the hallowed collection of our fulfilled prophecies. Read on and be enlightened."

The Bee, or Not the Bee?​

Can you tell satire from real news? Truth from fiction? Awfully hilarious from hilariously awful? Take this quiz to determine whether or not you're a true satirical genius. For each headline shown, click on the Bee logo or the Not the Bee logo depending on whether you think it's satire or a real news headline.

Damn!! I only got 7 out of 10.
 

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Premium Member
Tipping Member
1675717827379.png


OK you’ve had a day to calm down.


My post relates to people having the right to choose whether they take the vaccine or not. Nothing more.

I agree. But your post didn’t oppose them in that. It supported them, did it not?
 

Red Pill

Enthusiastic Amateur
View attachment 23223

OK you’ve had a day to calm down.




I agree. But your post didn’t oppose them in that. It supported them, did it not?
😂 wow! We really see the world very differently. my view was my view I don’t consult with all possible ideologies when making them. This with us or against us mentality is as backwards as what the holy 7 are accused of. I react to you the way I do because I know you are not really interested in my views, you are more interested in a kind of reputation type sabotage of posters who go against your ideals. I find it funny as most posters here mainly focus on their own conversations etc… and don’t really care that much about the supposed dominant narrative across the forum. You appear however very preoccupied with it.
 

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Premium Member
Tipping Member
@Red Pill it's really not a hard question. And only has any significance because you've accused me not once but numerous times of lying about this. Which is an allegation I take very seriously. So...

My post relates to people having the right to choose whether they take the vaccine or not. Nothing more.
I agree. But your post didn’t oppose them in that. It supported them, did it not?
 

Red Pill

Enthusiastic Amateur
@Red Pill it's really not a hard question. And only has any significance because you've accused me not once but numerous times of lying about this. Which is an allegation I take very seriously. So...


I agree. But your post didn’t oppose them in that. It supported them, did it not?
I have not reposted any antivax materials. This is what you have accused me of SER8.
Now you are saying just because I did not spell out in a post I made last year whilst defending Donny’s choice on not taking the vaccine that I did not support the antivax movement I was in fact supporting them by supporting Donny. I find this really hard to understand especially considering that Donny was not attempting to convince others in the team to boycott the vaccine like someone supposedly supporting the antivax movement would.
 

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Premium Member
Tipping Member
I have not reposted any antivax materials. This is what you have accused me of SER8.
I said you had reposted some of their mistruths, this is where I said it:

closed thread More Covid Discussion, around post#312 and others, you consistently argue in support anti-vaxxers rights to spread their various mistruths, even reposting some of them yourself.

One of their mistruths, at the time, was "no significant evidence to date of significant additional harm to others"


And you posted that mistruth right here - did you not?

1675723673472.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
11 9 2 82 20
11 8 3 112 18
11 8 3 75 18
11 7 4 65 16
12 7 5 135 14
12 7 5 57 14
11 6 5 -9 14
11 6 5 -38 14
12 6 5 36 13
11 5 6 47 12
12 6 6 2 12
11 5 6 -88 12
12 5 6 -3 11
11 3 8 -89 8
11 3 8 -119 8
11 2 9 -95 6
11 2 9 -170 6
Back
Top Bottom