Rugby Australia: A Cautionary Tale

[MuzztheEagle]

Jordan Peterson concludes ...

Quote
Imagine if the government DEMANDS that you call an Apple, a pear, when it's really an Apple. If you don't comply you get sent to jail. This is what JP is talking about.. Mandatory compelled Speech goes against Free Speech.

Again I agree, but this is irrelevant the with key word being government. The government has not had anything to do with this - it was a commercial decision. JP even makes that distinction in video posted.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Thanks Alan.


Somehow I doubt if those church schools you mentioned would be too keen on siding with the rantings of a not too bright ‘Christian’ fundamentalist. They could lose funds too, from parents taking their kids out of said schools for starters. Most of them are there to receive a perceived higher standard of education - not that many of them are anything to write home about on the scholastic front. I’m sure for most parents, the religious stuff is a second or third order priority. If that.


The outlandish beliefs of Christian fundamentalists are at odds with many mainstream clergy, at least in this country. These days they tend to take a more pragmatic view re: the Bible’s contents and prefer to concentrate on the positive teachings, rather than the hell and damnation stuff.


The latter is so obviously an invention of the Middle Ages, when the Church in Europe served as society’s moral and legal guardian, before the full impact of lawmaking and separation of church and state evolved through the centuries (think Magna Carta as an early step along that road) to give us a more nuanced system of moral, ethical and legal guidelines, than just adhering to the Ten Commandments.


I can’t recall the last time that even a senior Catholic figure has said anything about gay people burning in hell. Can you? Maybe JPII did during his papacy, but probably not as harshly as Folau. Especially now when they have been exposed as hypocrites, where some of their own people have done repugnant things to vulnerable children, under conditions of ‘loco parentis’, over many decades and no doubt centuries. And they’re not alone.


Apparently some of what Folau states is not even attributable to Jesus, but one of his disciples. There was an opinion piece by a well-qualified theologian on this subject in yesterday’s SMH. I commend it to you.

Thank you. Your humour is welcome, of course, but we need more of your insight around here.

 

[BOZO]

Free speech ...
Fck all the other NRL teams Go Manly !!!

Again I agree, but this is irrelevant the with key word being government. The government has not had anything to do with this - it was a commercial decision. JP even makes that distinction in video posted.

I agree to the principle of the matter also . As for the Governments my freedom of speech is they have a lot to answer for their incompetence in serving their country and people

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Quote
Imagine if the government DEMANDS that you call an Apple, a pear, when it's really an Apple. If you don't comply you get sent to jail. This is what JP is talking about.. Mandatory compelled Speech goes against Free Speech.

Again I agree, but this is irrelevant the with key word being government. The government has not had anything to do with this - it was a commercial decision. JP even makes that distinction in video posted.

I disagree with you both!
It is cynical to say it was a commercial decision, though that is possible.
And it's inaccurate to suggest it was analogous to a government censorship.
How about ... a simple statement of principle? 'It is unacceptable to hate gays for their sexuality'.
Don't you think there is such a thing as the history of gay-bashing?
I commend Rugby Australia (or whatever they are called) for making a principled stand.
If rugby doesn't survive this controversy, big deal.
Men will continue to enjoy testing their physicality against each other, whether in a rugby environment or otherwise.
And bigots will continue to try to separate 'them from us', with or without the approval of a religion or two.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

those that are not religious but big on civil rights such as freedom of speech

I love this 'freedom of speech' argument. Although I've never heard anyone actually explain what it means.
FYI you can get banned from this site for what you post, we have rules, terms and conditions of posting etc etc. Do you suggest we should allow every troll and psychopathic maniac to post hate speech due to 'freedom of speech'?

 

[BOZO]

I disagree with you both!
It is cynical to say it was a commercial decision, though that is possible.
And it's inaccurate to suggest it was analogous to a government censorship.
How about ... a simple statement of principle? 'It is unacceptable to hate gays for their sexuality'.
Don't you think there is such a thing as the history of gay-bashing?
I commend Rugby Australia (or whatever they are called) for making a principled stand.
If rugby doesn't survive this controversy, big deal.
Men will continue to enjoy testing their physicality against each other, whether in a rugby environment or otherwise.
And bigots will continue to try to separate 'them from us', with or without the approval of a religion or two.

This is a very interesting topic and we all have the right to see it through the colours of our own eyes .
I see your point and I strongly agree that No one should get bashed . Never .
And no one should lose their right to express their views . Never .

 

[47MVEagle]

I love this 'freedom of speech' argument. Although I've never heard anyone actually explain what it means.
FYI you can get banned from this site for what you post, we have rules, terms and conditions of posting etc etc. Do you suggest we should allow every troll and psychopathic maniac to post hate speech due to 'freedom of speech'?

Exactly!

We can all say what we like but there are consequences to what we say.

Also, freedom of speech doesnt override a person's right to live without being discriminated against.

 

[BOZO]

I love this 'freedom of speech' argument. Although I've never heard anyone actually explain what it means.
FYI you can get banned from this site for what you post, we have rules, terms and conditions of posting etc etc. Do you suggest we should allow every troll and psychopathic maniac to post hate speech due to 'freedom of speech'?

Very good point here .
There is a fine line in the sand with every thing we do

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

And no one should lose their right to express their views . Never .

What if someone gets paid a whole lot of money on the condition that they don't express their views?

 

[BOZO]

What if someone gets paid a whole lot of money on the condition that they don't express their views?

Then they are ruled by dollars and not their passionate views

 

[BOZO]

Exactly!

We can all say what we like but there are consequences to what we say.

Also, freedom of speech doesnt override a person's right to live without being discriminated against.

I see it this way ....

Not being able to express your belief is a descrimination in itself .

 

[Kevinward777]

I disagree with you both!
It is cynical to say it was a commercial decision, though that is possible.
And it's inaccurate to suggest it was analogous to a government censorship.
How about ... a simple statement of principle? 'It is unacceptable to hate gays for their sexuality'.
Don't you think there is such a thing as the history of gay-bashing?
I commend Rugby Australia (or whatever they are called) for making a principled stand.
If rugby doesn't survive this controversy, big deal.
Men will continue to enjoy testing their physicality against each other, whether in a rugby environment or otherwise.
And bigots will continue to try to separate 'them from us', with or without the approval of a religion or two.

Christian fundamentalist bigots who are restricted by their archaic, hateful, uneducated, dark aged theologies are always getting themselves into trouble for disrespecting others. The rest of the world is so enamoured by love, goodwill and respect.

You just couldn’t make this stuff up.

Edit; Those happy clappy, God botherering idiots are also hypocrites... let’s not forget that. Certain Sky fairy “believers” have been convicted of heinous crimes as well... they should all be burnt at the stake.

Christians are so adept at generalisation. Cough cough cough...

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

And no one should lose their right to express their views . Never .

Now, Victor*, do you suggest someone should be able to come here and advocate for exterminating Jews? for the right to rape women in marriage? for the supremacy of the Eels or Bulldogs.
Come on!! Explain this 'freedom to express views' to me!


* (and forgive me if that is not your name, when many of us were worried about you there was some on-line research undertaken, and the consensus was that it was either Victor or Arnold)

Signed (as per my signature) Lach (which is an abbreviated form of 'Lachlan' (meaning 'warlike') but of course we are all anonymous hereabouts.

 

[Class of 96]

The thing for me is, I think Izzy is a bit dopey and I got a chuckle out of his comments, given most were aimed at the likes of me. But to say he hates these people is a misinterpretation. In his world, he is trying to get her people to repent, as has occurred throughout history. That is very different to hate. My other dislike is an employer owning a persons private comments. This is tantamount to slavery. I own you and you will say what I tell you to say. I have a massive problem with this. There was a time not that long ago where say for instance, gay people were discriminated against for their personal beliefs. Is this not hypricrosy on a major scale?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Very good point here .
There is a fine line in the sand with every thing we do

No, it is not in the sand, getting washed away with every movement of the current.
Not so fine Bozo. It is actually as solid as a steel girder.
In the end, everyone must make their decision as to which side they stand - freedom to abuse others, or stand together against prejudice.
Is it really such a fine line?

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

Then they are ruled by dollars and not their passionate views

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. You just described Israel Folau

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The thing for me is, I think Izzy is a bit dopey and I got a chuckle out of his comments, given most were aimed at the likes of me. But to say he hates these people is a misinterpretation. In his world, he is trying to get her people to repent, as has occurred throughout history. That is very different to hate. My other dislike is an employer owning a persons private comments. This is tantamount to slavery. I own you and you will say what I tell you to say. I have a massive problem with this. There was a time not that long ago where say for instance, gay people were discriminated against for their personal beliefs. Is this not hypricrosy on a major scale?

I agree with your concern about employers owning your right to a belief or opinion.
Who are they to dictate?
Other than (probably) someone born to privilege? (or someone bribed to cooperate with privilege)

 

[47MVEagle]

I see it this way ....

Not being able to express your belief is a descrimination in itself .

Do you think someone's right to express their belief should take precedence over another's right not to be discriminated against?

 

[BOZO]

Now, Victor*, do you suggest someone should be able to come here and advocate for exterminating Jews? for the right to rape women in marriage? for the supremacy of the Eels or Bulldogs.
Come on!! Explain this 'freedom to express views' to me!


* (and forgive me if that is not your name, when many of us were worried about you there was some on-line research undertaken, and the consensus was that it was either Victor or Arnold)

Signed (as per my signature) Lach (which is an abbreviated form of 'Lachlan' (meaning 'warlike') but of course we are all anonymous hereabouts.

You got the name right and I will always remember the thouhtfulness and kindness the Silveratils forum game me and that meant a lot to me and always will

I will try my best to answer your question and hopefully you can understand what I am trying to say
.
With my religeous belief every one gets judged in the next life according to their circumstances and the hypocretes like me who claim to represent their faith and not live up to their faiths standards and also others who use their position of trust or power to take advantage and harm others and turn away people from their faith will be judged the harshest . No one is exempt from judgement day in the next life not even Rugby preachers

We all have different standards , beliefs and phylosophies in life and i do not think we should get offended by other who have different beliefs as long as they do not force us against our will to take away our freedom to live the way we want to . And in this country no person can do this to any of us .


As I said there is a line in the sand with freedom of speech .

This country has accepted cultures that their faith or political background advocate exterminating Jews and raping woman in marriage .
The line in the sand that I see is that you can express your views as long as no actions are taken to harm others .

I am not a very articulate person so I hope it makes some sense

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

The sad thing is that due to Folau’s quixotry, and Australian Rugby’s reaction (I don’t know what else they could have done, Folau had painted them into a corner) we could end up with laws that allow idiots like this bloke to spout his twaddle, under the guise of ‘religious freedom’.

Some of the more aggressive proponents inside religions other than Christianity will be watching closely.

Then we shall see how vigorously some people in Australia want to defend Folau’s right to confirm that he is indeed a credulous moron, courtesy of his preposterous rantings.