Gay rights campaigner loses Footy Show case

[Titanic]

Complex debate...

Anthony Mundine is "Choc" to his three friends and yesterday I woke up with a "chocolate". Some may say I was lucky and ask did the trouble & strife give it a hammering while some others may be confused into thinking I woke up with Tony's little boy.

Context is the key. Context. context, context - there is no defence for racism and no place for it in our game... nor for that matter in AFL... imho.

 

[millersnose]

You're falling into the same trap as Millers and others... presuming that someone's post about a practical matter reveals anything about their personal morals, feelings or opinions.

oh

It's simply to educate them in how to show the appropriate "respect" in the interaction

appropriate respect

what do you mean by that?

Cheers :thumn, someone here actually understands how this wasn't all actually consensual, and the responsibility Johns had in that.

here you accuse mathew johns of rape when no charges have been laid after an investigation

he and Firman should not have allowed anyone else into the room, end of story.

here you declare what people should and shouldnt do in their bedroom

 

[Timmah]

Some people have politicised our game beyond belief. Ridiculous.

 

[Redback71]

oh for gods sake why dont they just grow up and grow some balls.
sick of the whole lot of them they make us feel like where the ones in the wrong, the way they go on and everything inventing new words everytime they have a complaint.

supose this comment will be deleted also...

 

[millersnose]

So you're also against paying out on blondes, irish, kiwi sheep farmers, etc....??

What about the baby jokes from years ago... while I found them extremely sick should a class action have been taken up representing all babies..??

Ever listened to Bill Crosby or Eddie Murphy..?? All whites should sue the pants off them going by your arguments...

Someone is always the brunt of a joke... if you don't find it funny don't laugh..

My brother is gay, when anyone tries to put the mockers on him he simply informs them that they don't know what they're missing out on.....

If there are people out there who take this sh*t seriously and go about being a REAL homophobe then try putting some of the blame onto their parents for not teaching them how to take a f**king joke.....

well said

 

[bartman]

appropriate respect

what do you mean by that?

Are these from another thread... strange you didn't respond in that thread.

But you'll notice "respect" is in inverted commas. The game has a practical duty to educate its employees in areas where they may fall short of wider community morality - since this morality dictates business decisions like sponsorship, attendance, junior participation, merhcandise sales, ratings etc for the game as a whole. Do I have to explain to you what that community view of appropriate "respect" might be, or can you guess from the coverage of that situation?

here you accuse mathew johns of rape when no charges have been laid after an investigation

It does no such thing. If you think that post breaks the member guidelines then please report it to the mods.

The community perception of group sex is different to the group sex presented in the Christchurch example, as has been mentioned in an article (probably linked in that thread, but please bump that thread if you wish to discuss it further). Someone smply "got" that league's target market can see the morality of the two different understandings of group sex differently, and make judgements on consent. This is what the game, and its employees need to understand, for the sake of the game's future.

here you declare what people should and shouldnt do in their bedroom

No, here I declare what should have happened so that the game's image in the public eye wasn't dragged through what it has been dragged through. One girl, two guys she directly and in advance consented with, and there is no scandal, story or issue about Johns role remaining tenable.

No statements of my personal morality in the above - again, you are choosing to make presumptions about posts that are coming from the pragmatic angle, not the personal.

 

[lockyrulz]

Complex debate...

Anthony Mundine is "Choc" to his three friends and yesterday I woke up with a "chocolate". Some may say I was lucky and ask did the trouble & strife give it a hammering while some others may be confused into thinking I woke up with Tony's little boy.

Context is the key. Context. context, context - there is no defence for racism and no place for it in our game... nor for that matter in AFL... imho.

The rare voice of reason.

Those of you seeking definitive answers here are in for a long and fruitless wait. ADB's exist, like it or not. They will hear cases, like any court or tribunal, and they will judge each one on its merits, and comparing apples and oranges is pointless, because as the above poster correclty stated, context is the key.

This is little different to anything esle courts hear everyday, things are not heard and judged upon the same way and out of context. Take assault for instance, smash the hell out of someone on the street with your shoulder and you will most likely be up on charges, do it on a footy field and they give you a rep jersey. Everything in life is different and all about context.

 

[Raudonikis]

oh



appropriate respect

what do you mean by that?



here you accuse mathew johns of rape when no charges have been laid after an investigation



here you declare what people should and shouldnt do in their bedroom

This is exactly what i meant bout bart ramming his moral crap down everyones throat in so many threads reguarding leagues issues and yet he denies he was doing that,not only his morals but actually declaring what should happen in curtain curcumstances.Matt johns episode for example.
Should be batman not bartman.It must be wonderful to have lead a life where you have never done wrong or done anything that doesnt conform to moral crusaders.

 

[bartman]

This is exactly what i meant bout bart ramming his moral crap down everyones throat in so many threads reguarding leagues issues and yet he denies he was doing that,not only his morals but actually declaring what should happen in curtain curcumstances.Matt johns episode for example.

Read above response to Millers' presumptions. Not my morals, but yes, discussing my opinion of what should happen. The same way epopel discuss which player should be dropped or picked this week.

Should be batman not bartman.It must be wonderful to have lead a life where you have never done wrong or done anything that doesnt conform to moral crusaders.

I've never said any such thing about my life :lol:. I think you're taking things on here way too seriously Raudi...

 

[millersnose]

Are these from another thread... strange you didn't respond in that thread.

But you'll notice "respect" is in inverted commas.

lol

Do I have to explain to you what that community view of appropriate "respect" might be, or can you guess from the coverage of that situation?

no

most people dont give a rats what other people do in their bedrooms

only moral crusaders like you like to define what is acceptable and what is not

It does no such thing. If you think that post breaks the member guidelines then please report it to the mods.

it does

and i did bring such unbacked accusations up in the mods forum and administration did comment that all posters and mods should not make such accusations without proof as is the policy of this site

and you stopped shortly thereafter - so stop with your dishonesty

if the woman didnt consent bart then it is rape

rape is non consensual sex

so you clearly accused these men of rape

The community perception of group sex is different to the group sex presented in the Christchurch example

crap

who are you to define what the community definition of sex is?

No, here I declare what should have happened so that the game's image in the public eye wasn't dragged through what it has been dragged through.

crap

you declared what people shouldnt do in their bedroom

this shortly after claiming it was non consensual sex

No statements of my personal morality in the above - again, you are choosing to make presumptions about posts that are coming from the pragmatic angle, not the personal.

nonsense

you repeatedly passed judgement on the guilt of these men

you repeatedly declared what they should and shouldnt do

you are even appointing yourself the arbiter of what is 'community morality'

 

[ramble_on]

Sorry Willow, just noticed you made reference to me... but I realized what an idiot you are ages ago so usually don't bother with the content of anything you have to say...... I'm not sure what a goangod is but I'm sure you calling someone that makes you all warm and fuzzy inside... enjoy yourself tiger........

 

[millersnose]

goangod is the archetypal anti-gay crusader

like bartman is to group sex

 

[Hanscholo]

oh please.

 

[ramble_on]

I see.... thanks for reinforcing my original opinion of Willow.....

 

[bartman]

most people dont give a rats what other people do in their bedrooms

only moral crusaders like you like to define what is acceptable and what is not

Have never attempted to do so.

and i did bring such unbacked accusations up in the mods forum and administration did comment that all posters and mods should not make such accusations without proof as is the policy of this site

and you stopped shortly thereafter - so stop with your dishonesty

I must've missed that discussion, or your contribution to it... can't be bothered going to search for it, as it doesn't matter. I'm not the one trying ever so hard cherry picking quotes from another thread out of context to score a personal point here...

Re consent and rape etc... no charges were laid, it was therefore never rape and I never claimed it was. Consent was implied to be in dispute via the 4 Corners show, and it was a valid thing to discuss and comment on. Voss on the footy show claimed his experience in interviewing people about it afterwards was that it was the "respect" issue (not consent) that bothered people the most - hence discussion moving in that direction.

crap

who are you to define what the community definition of sex is?

There's a link to an article discussing community definitions of group sex linked in that thread (or a related thread) - if you care to discuss that meaningfully, please read the article and bump that thread.

crap

you declared what people shouldnt do in their bedroom

this shortly after claiming it was non consensual sex

I did no such thing, other than in the context of behaviour that wouldn't harm the games image.

And I did not claim it was non-consensual, but teh show implied consent was in dispute - that's why so many other people here didn't like the show, remember? :lol:.

nonsense

you repeatedly passed judgement on the guilt of these men

you repeatedly declared what they should and shouldnt do

you are even appointing yourself the arbiter of what is 'community morality'

I never judged guilt, but I did judge that they had harmed the image of the game.

I did declare what behaviour is in the best interests of the game.

I did link to an article discussing community morality re different versions of group sex.

None of which touches on my own personal morals re group sex... as much as you would apparently like it to :lol:.

Now, have you got anything to add to the topic of this thread, or will you continue to stick to your strengths of trolling, and playing the person and not the issue...

 

[bartman]

goangod is the archetypal anti-gay crusader

like bartman is to group sex

:lol:

I've got a little puppy dog, following me home... even following me into different threads. :sarcasm:

 

[millersnose]

Have never attempted to do so.


I must've missed that discussion, or your contribution to it... can't be bothered going to search for it, as it doesn't matter.

imagine my surprise

I'm not the one trying ever so hard cherry picking quotes from another thread out of context to score a personal point here...

pal you were the one who bought up johns in this thread and tried to link it to this case

Re consent and rape etc... no charges were laid, it was therefore never rape and I never claimed it was. Consent was implied to be in dispute via the 4 Corners show, and it was a valid thing to discuss and comment on.

you declared it was non consensual did you not???


the very ddefinition of rape is to have sex with someone against their will and without their consent

dbe a man for a change and stick by your own words

And I did not claim it was non-consensual,

you bloody liar


here are your words

Cheers :thumn, someone here actually understands how this wasn't all actually consensual, and the responsibility Johns had in that.

I never judged guilt,

you bloody liar

here are your words

Cheers :thumn, someone here actually understands how this wasn't all actually consensual, and the responsibility Johns had in that.

grow a pair bartman

stop lying all the time and man up and admit you were wrong

 

[skeepe]

goangod is the archetypal anti-gay crusader

like bartman is to group sex

You're selling goangod out there. He was so much more than that, and so very entertaining. He particularly hated me, I'm sad that he's gone.

Ahh, what a complex issue. Here is where we see the true ignorant attitudes flourish. See, those seeking to dismiss the idea that people could be so offended by such a sketch that they would seek redress by legal means are really shifting the goalposts of the argument.

They're saying "so what if I call someone a nice person, it's affectionate!" when what was said in the sketch was that to be gay is to be defective, to have something wrong with you, to be almost sub-human. If "Elton Johns" were simply described as a nice person, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hate to break it to you guys, but that's not the same as giving someone an affectionate ribbing.

What amuses me most though is when anyone has their homophobic views challenged, they immediately retort that the challenger is a moral crusader rather than trying to address the issue. When you resort to name-calling, you've got nothing.

The funny thing is, most of these posters seem rather rational in other threads, yet always resort to what, to me, seems to be an irrational fear of what's different. Except for blacktip-reefy, Raudonikis and millersnose, who are clearly insane.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[millersnose]

yeah gg despite his homophobia was always clear about his views and willing to stand by them

 

[bartman]

pal you were the one who bought up johns in this thread and tried to link it to this case

I briefly mentioned people's reactions to Gallen and Johns, not the cases itself.

But don't let that distract you from having an entire discussion about something that was dealt with in totally different threads, a matter of a few weeks ago.

you declared it was non consensual did you not???


the very ddefinition of rape is to have sex with someone against their will and without their consent

dbe a man for a change and stick by your own words

I don't believe I "declared" the Christchurch incident non-consensual... that was not my intention (why would it be?). Damaging for the game, yes. Consent under dispute - obviously because she made a complaint to police at the time, yes. Proven non-consensual? No, since charges were not laid.

You're having fun there with your definitions, but it's got nothing to do with being a man.

you bloody liar


here are your words

*sigh*

"wasn't all consensual" means consent was in dispute. She made a complaint to police, which (by definition) means the consent was in dispute, to her, at that time. Is that too hard to understand?

The bigger the font doesn't change the meaning of the words :lol:. And the context was in relation to a discussion to why the incident and behaviour was damaging to the game, rather than personal morals or attempted legal judgements like you seem to want the words to mean.

grow a pair bartman

stop lying all the time and man up and admit you were wrong

They're just words on an internet forum, opinions, discussions... you seem awfully bothered about them for some reason, but didn't post on the matter two weeks ago, in the relevant thread? What is it again that you are so bothered that I'm wrong about? All along I'm just offering alternate opinions, that's what a discussion forum is for...

Anything to add to the current thread and discussion of the footy show complaint Millers? Or are you still "manning up" on your trolling? Please bump the other thread if you really wish to discuss Johns and Christchurch again...