Folau joins the Dragons

[Saint_JimmyG]

Seriously Jimmy..

Have a break..

You’re only making a goose of yourself.

You’re my inspiration.

 

[Old Kogarah Boy 1]

yeah, really glad we didn’t sign him, but I kind of agree. Firing a guy for speaking his mind is dangerous, even if it bordered in hate speech (if I heard right). I think the better way to handle it would have been to use his antics to speak the other way and condemn the comments

There is nothing wrong with speaking your mind, however, when you combined the type of speech he spits out, the fact that he uses various platforms to distribute it and the fact that he plays in a team sport for a club and not solely for himself, displays total arrogance on his part. He wants it both ways.

With his sport, he’s representing a brand yet he wants to push his views, whatever they may be. That in itself is a contradiction.

We all have views but we don’t shove them down people’s throats.

Hitlar spoke about his hatred of the Jews.
Purely from a verbal point of view, is Falou any different?

 

[Willow]

Folau has NOT indicated he hates anyone

Well an Anglican Bishop disagrees with you.

An Anglican bishop has branded the religious statements of Australian rugby union player Israel Folau as hate speech.

The Bishop of Grafton, the Right Reverend Dr Murray Harvey, said free speech should not be used to vilify others.
...
Bishop Harvey said while Folau was free to hold particular religious views, how he expressed them in public was another matter.

"Threatening people in this way cannot be disguised as protected religious activity — if it was then things like ethnic cleansing could be justified on religious grounds as having divine approval," Bishop Harvey said.

More: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...laus-relious-comments-as-hate-speech/11095702

With words come consequences. Folau must know that his views will cause offence and harm. His ultimate aim may be to bring about salvation through his faith, but his method is to spread hate in order to achieve that outcome.

Now Jimmy, if you want to be an apologist for Folau, that's your choice. Same if you think it's about religious freedom, go for it. I don't expect to change your mind or for you to understand the concept of a secular society. But you'll find that most people will disagree with you, even some in the clergy.

That said, what are your thoughts on Folau saying the bush fires and drought are god's punishment for legalising gay marriage?

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

There is nothing wrong with speaking your mind, however, when you combined the type of speech he spits out, the fact that he uses various platforms to distribute it and the fact that he plays in a team sport for a club and not solely for himself, displays total arrogance on his part. He wants it both ways.

With his sport, he’s representing a brand yet he wants to push his views, whatever they may be. That in itself is a contradiction.

We all have views but we don’t shove them down people’s throats.

Hitlar spoke about his hatred of the Jews.
Purely from a verbal point of view, is Falou any different?

Well, I don’t think Folau will send any Jewish people to Auschwitz in the foreseeable future.

 

[Old Kogarah Boy 1]

Well, I don’t think Folau will send any Jewish people to Auschwitz in the foreseeable future.

No, as l mentioned, my comments were related only towards ‘verbal’ comments made, nothing more.

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

No, as l mentioned, my comments were related only towards ‘verbal’ comments made, nothing more.

The last sentence of your previous posts asks whether Folau is “any different” to Hitler.

I answered with a specific example.

Comparisons are both silly and non helpful.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Words - the cause of more harm to people than any weapon ever invented.

I'll just leave it at that.

 

[giboz71]

I'm pretty sure Folau has very strict conditions in his contract not to repeat what has happened before. If he re-offends, then he gets the boot again. Simple as that.

He's no different to other players of who have a rap sheet that are still playing our game. Lodge, Packer, AFB, Walker to name a few.

And given there is still a tennis stadium named after a sports person who has publicly expressed similar views, Folau should still be allowed to earn a living, provided he keeps his opinions to himself.

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

Words - the cause of more harm to people than any weapon ever invented.

I'll just leave it at that.

Fair point, although there are other things which could be used as an addendum.

(Think the seven deadly sins)

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

Well an Anglican Bishop disagrees with you.

An Anglican bishop has branded the religious statements of Australian rugby union player Israel Folau as hate speech.

The Bishop of Grafton, the Right Reverend Dr Murray Harvey, said free speech should not be used to vilify others.
...
Bishop Harvey said while Folau was free to hold particular religious views, how he expressed them in public was another matter.

"Threatening people in this way cannot be disguised as protected religious activity — if it was then things like ethnic cleansing could be justified on religious grounds as having divine approval," Bishop Harvey said.

More: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...laus-relious-comments-as-hate-speech/11095702

With words come consequences. Folau must know that his views will cause offence and harm. His ultimate aim may be to bring about salvation through his faith, but his method is to spread hate in order to achieve that outcome.

Now Jimmy, if you want to be an apologist for Folau, that's your choice. Same if you think it's about religious freedom, go for it. I don't expect to change your mind or for you to understand the concept of a secular society. But you'll find that most people will disagree with you, even some in the clergy.

That said, what are your thoughts on Folau saying the bush fires and drought are god's punishment for legalising gay marriage?

One person? This is redolent of Muzby claiming Soward played well at halfback because of a single game against Brisbane in 2097

Silly.

Hatred? Not even close. The best Folau could be accused of is inciting fear into specific groups, but if someone is frightened all because of a meme, well, I’d question their sanity.

A Folau apologist? Nope, I just exercise my own perspective and try not to become an unnecessary alarmist (unlike others).

As for your question, well, that’s difficult to answer because there’s no way of proving (or otherwise) whether Folau is correct. Only God (if you believe in HIM) knows the truth here. Personally, I’m unsurprised Folau would use such extremities as....surprise, surprise...his views have already been publicly documented ad infintum. Take it with a grain of salt is my best advice.

 

[merahputih]

Any "freedom" has to be balanced against responsibility. Folau was an employee of the ARU. Employers have the legal right to impose conditions of behavior for employees, particularly when that behavior impacts on the image of the organisation that employs them. As such Folau had a responsibility under his contract to not make public comments that could bring negative publicity to him and inevitably his employer. This is a common requirement throughout most large organisations and has been thoroughly tested in the courts. It has nothing to do with "religious freedom".

 

[SBD82]

I'm pretty sure Folau has very strict conditions in his contract not to repeat what has happened before. If he re-offends, then he gets the boot again. Simple as that.

He's no different to other players of who have a rap sheet that are still playing our game. Lodge, Packer, AFB, Walker to name a few.

And given there is still a tennis stadium named after a sports person who has publicly expressed similar views, Folau should still be allowed to earn a living, provided he keeps his opinions to himself.

He was previously employed by a sporting body who repeatedly asked him to keep his opinions to himself. He did not do so.

When they then tried to terminate their contract with him, he sued them, and the media created the “free speech” narrative that has been a catalyst for the proposed regressive religious freedom laws. These laws may form the basis for any future legal proceedings taken by Folau against an employer.

Rugby Australia then agreed to compensation, the amount of which is unknown but suspected to be several million dollars.

Given all of that, if I was an employer, I wouldn’t even consider employing him. Why would the NRL? Take the ethics argument away, on the cost:benefit scale, the risk of employing him hugely outweighs the benefits.

 

[SBD82]

Agreed...the matter was always going to be finalised out of court, but it’s only because it finally dawned on the ARU that Folau was in a position of strength from a litigation perspective.

He could’ve severely towelled up the code.

It faced a multi million dollar payout far worse than what it had to ultimately spend. The ARU tried to improse a laughable (not to mention, illegal) Code Of Conduct policy...found out it couldn’t...and tried to save face by acquiescing meekly.

I didn’t change the point

You did.

I repudiate that the meme Folau posted contained ANY reference to hate.

It simply doesn’t. Please show me otherwise.

(I don’t think you fully understand the definition of homophobia, which universally refers to descriptions of dislike and hatred.

Equally, Folau has NOT indicated he hates anyone irrespective of their social standing. In fact, he has gone on public record stating the contrary. Of course, this gets ignored by those determined to stick the knife in.

As for the meme, it espouses a certain ideology which an individual can choose to agree with or otherwise. This moves onto the concept of free will, which is an entirely different conversation altogether.

As for Israel posting whatever on his Instagram account...fine, he can do so. He hasn’t committed a crime; his beliefs are well known. More importantly...and this is conveniently ignored by hypocrites....he isn’t forcing anyone to agree with them: There is (at least) a 50% possibility he’s right.

I note your hypocrisy that it’s ok to ridicule religious groups. Not much of an even playing field there.

And your (quite frankly) hysterical claptrap apropos “comparisons” is flawed and poorly constructed.,You and I...including the average schmuck in the street, all know that if the term homosexuals wasn’t featured in that bloody meme, none of this nonsense would have occurred.

Are you so naive to not realise that (for example) adulterers also face the same severe punishment you’ve mentioned, particularly in Middle Eastern countries? There are places outside Australia, y’know?

Time to hope off the high horse and accept not everyone is suckered in by hysteria driven by numerous media outlets controlled by emotive headlines and corporate avarice.

Could you please pick one argument and try to argue it effectively? Picking ten and makng zero sense in any of them really hurts my brain.

 

[giboz71]

He was previously employed by a sporting body who repeatedly asked him to keep his opinions to himself. He did not do so.

When they then tried to terminate their contract with him, he sued them, and the media created the “free speech” narrative that has been a catalyst for the proposed regressive religious freedom laws. These laws may form the basis for any future legal proceedings taken by Folau against an employer.

Rugby Australia then agreed to compensation, the amount of which is unknown but suspected to be several million dollars.

Given all of that, if I was an employer, I wouldn’t even consider employing him. Why would the NRL? Take the ethics argument away, on the cost:benefit scale, the risk of employing him hugely outweighs the benefits.

All fair points.

I don't know the bloke, but at the end of the day he is still an athlete who wants to play. He's hardly going to be able to ply his trade by continuing to sue his employers. I assume that's what Catalans are banking on.

Is it a risk to sign him? Absolutely. But given its only a 1 year deal at about 400k, the risk is minimal.

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

Could you please pick one argument and try to argue it effectively? Picking ten and makng zero sense in any of them really hurts my brain.

Well, that’s very subjective of you; sincere apologies to your brain (hopefully it hasn’t overloaded)?

Mind you the “ten” so-called arguments were in response to Willow’s last post where he referred to numerous things.

 

[SBD82]

All fair points.

I don't know the bloke, but at the end of the day he is still an athlete who wants to play. He's hardly going to be able to ply his trade by continuing to sue his employers. I assume that's what Catalans are banking on.

Is it a risk to sign him? Absolutely. But given its only a 1 year deal at about 400k, the risk is minimal.

I’m wondering whether French law provides greater legal protection for the club than an Australian league club or the NRL might have. If so it could mitigate the financial risk.

 

[muzby]

One person? This is redolent of Muzby claiming Soward played well at halfback because of a single game against Brisbane in 2097

Robert Soward (great grandson of Jamie) will have a blinder in that game. I hope I’m still alive to see it.


But given you’ve decided to try and heap shit on me as part of your defence, your statement was that you hadn’t seen him play a good game at halfback.

I gave you that game.

Stop sooking and posthumously changing minute parts of an argument to suit your position.

It’s just like your Hitler defence you used earlier. You’re either really precious, really stupid or just trolling.

Possibly all three.

Anyway, I’ll leave you to keep digging your hole.

 

[SBD82]

Well, that’s very subjective of you; sincere apologies to your brain (hopefully it hasn’t overloaded)?

Mind you the “ten” so-called arguments were in response to Willow’s last post where he referred to numerous things.

Maybe I overloaded my brain learning to multi quote.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Maybe I overloaded my brain learning to multi quote.

Lol I still have no idea how to do it, so that makes 2 of us

 

[muzby]

Lol I still have no idea how to do it

Me neither..

so that makes 2 of us

3 of us now..