Happy Australia Day

[Brookie Bob]

As nearly everyone knows, a "Unite the Right" rally was held on 11 and 12 Aug 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA - where white nationalists protested the city’s decision to remove a statue of Robert E Lee, who had led the Confederate Army in the Civil War in defence of states rights to maintain slavery.

I'm going to pull you up on that one.

Robert E Lee was driven by a desire to defend his home state of Virginia, which even outweighed his allegiance to the USA.

"He was asked while leaving Texas by a lieutenant if he intended to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, to which Lee replied, "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty". " Freeman, Douglas S. (1934). R. E. Lee, A Biography. Charles Scribner's Sons.

His attitude to slavery: "In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country." Thomas, Emory M. (1997). Robert E. Lee. W. W. Norton & Co. ISBN 978-0-393-31631-5.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Whatever Gen Lee's personal views he led the army figting to preserve the right to keep slaves, and I guess that is why the white supremacists rallied that day to save his statue.
Sorry if the reference in that post wasn't clear, my point was I had raised this with Red Pill not long ago hoping he would denounce them, and denounce the far right, yet he didn't take that opportunity instead he again changed the subject and resorted to insult. Kind of like he did against Budgie in this thread, and also with me, trying to belittle my opinion by saying I had a lowly job. That's not an honest way to debate serious subjects. Surely.

 

[Brookie Bob]

Whatever Gen Lee's personal views he led the army figting to preserve the right to keep slaves, and I guess that is why the white supremacists rallied that day to save his statue.
Sorry if the reference in that post wasn't clear, my point was I had raised this with Red Pill not long ago hoping he would denounce them, and denounce the far right, yet he didn't take that opportunity instead he again changed the subject and resorted to insult. Kind of like he did against Budgie in this thread, and also with me, trying to belittle my opinion by saying I had a lowly job. That's not an honest way to debate serious subjects. Surely.

No worries.

In the pursuit of balance, fairness and equity, we should all be awake to the agendas of both the far right and the far left.

And also recognize that history happened; can't be changed or conveniently re-written; and that everyone in the past was the product of the prevailing ideas at the time.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if all of us today aren't viewed as unenlightened barbarians at some point in the future - but ever has it been so.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Yeah I sometimes try to imagine what the people of 200 years in the future (which let's face it may not even exist!) will think about our current world and systems and politics and technologies. As far as Australia goes, this great land I love, I think our greatest shame is the continued disadvantage of first nations folk (just by all the various statistical measures of disadvantage) and our indefintie locking up of asylum seekers for many years without charge. Even serious criminals get out quicker!

 

[Eagles4Life]

No ... The 7 were happy to play and never refused to ..... the NRL stepped in and said they had a rule that all players that take the field must be wearing identical jerseys ... so Manly had the choice to abandon the promotion and wear the normal jersey ... or go ahead and play minus the 7 ... the 7 were told if you don't wear it ... you don't play ...

Calling you on this one @Woodsie The players chose not to play. It was their decision alone. I would suggest you ask the club in writing through Wayne Cousins if you disagree with this statement.

 

[Red Pill]

No worries.

In the pursuit of balance, fairness and equity, we should all be awake to the agendas of both the far right and the far left.

And also recognize that history happened; can't be changed or conveniently re-written; and that everyone in the past was the product of the prevailing ideas at the time.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if all of us today aren't viewed as unenlightened barbarians at some point in the future - but ever has it been so.

Some good points.
I hope we are viewed on more on what we do as individuals with less emphasis on our propositions say in social media etc but the true aspects of our character of what actions we take where there is no virtue to be claimed…

 

[Brookie Bob]

Sigh here we go

Nothing to do with outdated religion

Isz - to be a 'Moderator' requires 'moderation'.

It's entirely possible that 61% of Australians (and therefore possibly reflective of Manly supporters as well) have a 'religious outlook' (https://www.newidea.com.au/religion-in-australia-statistics-trends-different-religions and Types of religion in Australia | Figures and Statistics - 2023 | AU ).

The pejorative 'outdated' may therefore be both non-factual and potentially cast aspersions on a significant percentage of Silvertails readers.

Wouldn't a balanced approach be to recognize that those with a 'religious outlook' may even include some people with intelligence, tolerance and a sense of fairness? Or are we tarring all folk with one brush?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Wouldn't a balanced approach be to recognize that those with a 'religious outlook' may even include some people with intelligence, tolerance and a sense of fairness? Or are we tarring all folk with one brush?

No doubt.
Nevertheless the last Australian census in 2021 showed 39.6% with no religion
Catholic 20%
Anglican 9.8%
And the trend towards no religion rising fast, compared with previous censuses.

 

[Woodsie]

Calling you on this one @Woodsie The players chose not to play. It was their decision alone. I would suggest you ask the club in writing through Wayne Cousins if you disagree with this statement.

How could they have played without wearing the jersey ?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

How could they have played without wearing the jersey ?

Hahaha that's a classic. Let's see, a fox, a chicken and a bale of seed need to get to the other side of the river but the farmer can't take them all at once in his small canoe. Terrible conundrum, lol

 

[Woodsie]

Hahaha that's a classic. Let's see, a fox, a chicken and a bale of seed need to get to the other side of the river but the farmer can't take them all at once in his small canoe. Terrible conundrum, lol

Gee ... I'm glad you're not one of those disrespectful trolls and baiters @lsz dislikes so much ....

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Well if you would respect the rules of this site and only post things that are reasonably on topic...in this case 'Happy Australia Day' ...

 

[lsz]

Isz - to be a 'Moderator' requires 'moderation'.

It's entirely possible that 61% of Australians (and therefore possibly reflective of Manly supporters as well) have a 'religious outlook' (https://www.newidea.com.au/religion-in-australia-statistics-trends-different-religions and Types of religion in Australia | Figures and Statistics - 2023 | AU ).

The pejorative 'outdated' may therefore be both non-factual and potentially cast aspersions on a significant percentage of Silvertails readers.

Wouldn't a balanced approach be to recognize that those with a 'religious outlook' may even include some people with intelligence, tolerance and a sense of fairness? Or are we tarring all folk with one brush?

My view is that in a modern society, much like the same sex marriage debate, there are outdated views.

I do not tar all religons just the outdated ones that can not see past the myth that sexuality is a choice and should lessen someones rights in life

 

[Red Pill]

I think the players were placed into a circumstance where they were forced to choose between how they exercise their religion ( rightly or wrongly) and playing the game. This was a completely foreign circumstance that they were not apparently consulted on.
I think we can get caught up in all sorts of semantics here but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that subjectively ( subjective to the players ) that they did not have a choice considering they would position their religion in this circumstance ( again rightly or wrongly) ahead of playing the game….

 

[Seagles68]

No worries.

In the pursuit of balance, fairness and equity, we should all be awake to the agendas of both the far right and the far left.

And also recognize that history happened; can't be changed or conveniently re-written; and that everyone in the past was the product of the prevailing ideas at the time.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if all of us today aren't viewed as unenlightened barbarians at some point in the future - but ever has it been so.

Is it ok that I refer to Parra supporters as unenlightened barbarians? Probably not. Bugger!!

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that subjectively ( subjective to the players ) that they did not have a choice considering they would position their religion in this circumstance ( again rightly or wrongly) ahead of playing the game….

I agree with you, it is mere semantics.

If I see a child about to enter a burning building I must try to stop them.

I have no choice, based on my humanity and ethics, beliefs etc.

But yet I have a choice and I exercise that choice. Do I not? Otherwise what distinguishes me from the coward who stands back and allows the child to perish?

 

[Seagles68]

Well if you would respect the rules of this site and only post things that are reasonably on topic...in this case 'Happy Australia Day' ...

Hmmm, I think I might also be guilty of that coz sometimes I jump in and comment on what's being said at the time and don't even know what the thread topic is anymore. Oooops! My apologies folks.

 

[Eagles4Life]

How could they have played without wearing the jersey ?

They couldn't have. However, they were advised of the consequence of their choice at the time of making it. At the end of the day, they should never have been put into that situation in the first place. That's 100% on the club. However, it was always their choice alone to wear the jersey or not to wear the jersey.

 

[Red Pill]

I agree with you, it is mere semantics.

If I see a child about to enter a burning building I must try to stop them.

I have no choice, based on my humanity and ethics, beliefs etc.

But yet I have a choice and I exercise that choice. Do I not? Otherwise what distinguishes me from the coward who stands back and allows the child to perish?

I think framing this through the second person perspective may assist. I also see no correlation between a life threatening circumstance you describe and this… would you try to force a Muslim to break away from ramandan ? ..

 

[Red Pill]

I agree with you, it is mere semantics.

If I see a child about to enter a burning building I must try to stop them.

I have no choice, based on my humanity and ethics, beliefs etc.

But yet I have a choice and I exercise that choice. Do I not? Otherwise what distinguishes me from the coward who stands back and allows the child to perish?

To add to my above points the answer is yes there is a choice, but in reality choices like this are not always binary.. I would suggest that the choice imposed upon the players was unnecessarily uncomfortable for them to say yes.. thus in a sense , no choice…..