News Do you care if Israel Folau returns to the NRL?

[Knight Vision]

It's funny how all the snowflakes are the first to resort to stereotyping etc .. whatever.

"snowflake " how original - In political science terms you are a classic cultural reactionary. Guided masterfully by the endless streams of false and divisive Murdoch press to keep you scared and voting for the party of your corporate masters choosing. You're a sheep void of independent and thoughtful analysis.

 

[Knight Vision]

Yes I agree but do we write him off and say he has no chance of reform. As you pointed out the Dalai Lama has reformed and now tentatively supports gay marriage so why can’t Israel?

It was not long ago that the majority of Australia was against Islamic head gear and burkas now the majority cheers as NZ prime minister wears the clothing to stand against religious oppression.

perhaps you're right, but he's have to do a complete 180. I think Folau is now managed to damage his personal brand beyond repair.

 

[ULYSSES]

Ahh Night Vision, I love that you warn everyone not to argue with you. Not everyone knows they are an idiot. Cudos.

 

[Albert Rosenfeld]

perhaps you're right, but he's have to do a complete 180. I think Folau is now managed to damage his personal brand beyond repair.

No he hasn't. Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and the Gold Coast Titans are probably still interested in signing him.

 

[Knight Vision]

Ahh Night Vision, I love that you warn everyone not to argue with you. Not everyone knows they are an idiot. Cudos.

The Dunning-Kruger effect in full display I suspect.

'Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others.The same applies when you are stupid.'

 

[Timmah]

No he hasn't. Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and the Gold Coast Titans are probably still interested in signing him.

Well no, because Beattie has ruled it out.

 

[The Great Dane]

What I wonder about is how long it'll be before we reach the next logical conclusion of this policy of banning people that express a thought crime, to simply banning everybody that we (as a society) know/think we know holds these and similar ideas.

In other words, how long will it be before people start suggesting that we just blanket ban fundamentalist Christians from participating in wider society (specifically in this case from being able to be professional Rugby players), because broadly speaking we know for a fact that almost every fundamentalist Christian group agrees with Folau's "homophobic" interpretation of the bible.

So speaking at the principle level of the idea, what rational reason could there be to stop at only banning those that express the idea and leave those that for all intents and purposes we know also hold the idea unmolested!?

Why not just simply ban every member of fundamentalist Christian sects from participating in professional Rugby because they almost certainly also hold homophobic ideas similar to Falou's!?

Why stop at only Christian fundamentalists, may as well ban all the fundamentalist Jews, all the Muslims, and any followers of the other weird offshoots of the major Abrahamic religions as well, because broadly speaking they all adhere to the exact same homophobic ideas that Folau expressed!?

Why stop at only homophobic ideas, why not ban people that hold other ideas that we find uncouth and/or offensive as well!?

Realistically there's no principled reason why this idea of banning people that express uncouth ideas shouldn't spread to simply banning everybody that holds an idea that the majority (or at least a vocal minority) don't like or find offensive, and it's only a matter of time before political activist/pressure groups start demanding that other people that hold or are connected to other "offensive" ideas are banned.

 

[Perth Red]

What I wonder about is how long it'll be before we reach the next logical conclusion of this policy of banning people that express a thought crime, to simply banning everybody that we (as a society) know/think we know holds these and similar ideas.

In other words, how long will it be before people start suggesting that we just blanket ban fundamentalist Christians from participating in wider society (specifically in this case from being able to be professional Rugby players), because broadly speaking we know for a fact that almost every fundamentalist Christian group agrees with Folau's "homophobic" interpretation of the bible.

So speaking at the principle level of the idea, what rational reason could there be to stop at only banning those that express the idea and leave those that for all intents and purposes we know also hold the idea unmolested!?

Why not just simply ban every member of fundamentalist Christian sects from participating in professional Rugby because they almost certainly also hold homophobic ideas similar to Falou's!?

Why stop at only Christian fundamentalists, may as well ban all the fundamentalist Jews, all the Muslims, and any followers of the other weird offshoots of the major Abrahamic religions as well, because broadly speaking they all adhere to the exact same homophobic ideas that Folau expressed!?

Why stop at only homophobic ideas, why not ban people that hold other ideas that we find uncouth and/or offensive as well!?

Realistically there's no principled reason why this idea of banning people that express uncouth ideas shouldn't spread to simply banning everybody that holds an idea that the majority (or at least a vocal minority) don't like or find offensive, and it's only a matter of time before political activist/pressure groups start demanding that other people that hold or are connected to other "offensive" ideas are banned.

Great strawman argument, well done 10/10 for effort!

How hard is it to understand that you can believe what ever bat sht crazy ideas and delusions you like, just dont go publicly spouting them when they contradict your employers position if you want to keep your job or get another one.

 

[Shark62]

Great strawman argument, well done 10/10 for effort!

How hard is it to understand that you can believe what ever bat sht crazy ideas and delusions you like, just dont go publicly spouting them when they contradict your employers position if you want to keep your job or get another one.

He’s been told this dozens of times. He just refuses to understand a very simple point.

 

[myrrh ken]

Reminds me of an old joke.

Bloke starts a new job. Boss runs him through company rules. Number one rule is zero tolerance on disrespectful workplace interactions. Boss asks bloke if he has any questions.

'If I call you a merkin, would that be okay"

"No. that's a sackable offence."

"What if I just thought you were a merkin?"

"Well... I guess that would be okay"

"Okay. Well, I think you are a merkin."

 

[The Great Dane]

Great strawman argument, well done 10/10 for effort!

How exactly is that a straw man?

How hard is it to understand that you can believe what ever bat sht crazy ideas and delusions you like, just dont go publicly spouting them when they contradict your employers position if you want to keep your job or get another one.

On what principle does that ideal stop!

What is stopping the ARU from deciding that instead of firing people once they have expressed an opinion they don't like they simply won't hire Christians (or any other groups that also hold said ideas) because they may hold these ideas!? Absolutely nothing that's what.

And if we're going to allow the ARU and NRL to discriminate (I can't think of a better word for it) against people simply for holding an offensive opinion (so not actually breaking the law or anything), then which other organisations are we going to allow to discriminate against based on the same premise and are who else apart from homophobes we going to allow them to discriminate against!?

For example should the ARU be able to discriminate against people in their organisation that express a different political opinion to them? On principal there's nothing stopping them from deciding to do that from now on, because as a company they don't hold to those opinions and they don't want their organisation and brand associated with that!?

Also if the ARU and NRL can do it then whats stopping e.g. banks from being able to refuse service to people because they don't want to be associated with them/their opinions? You'll say that's a straw man because the people that they are discriminating against aren't working for the banks, but that is BS, because on the same principle you could argue that them selling their services to people associates their business with those people and their opinions (and people have already made that argument, just look at Youtube and other social media sites pulling being forced to pull advertising from certain groups/individuals because the advertisers "don't want their brand associated with them").

But even if you don't accept that premise (which you won't because you're an authoritarian who hasn't perceived of a future where you political ideals aren't held in the majority), what's stopping any and every company from refusing to hire people based on their opinions!? Nothing really, nothing at all! So realistically a situation has been created where portions of society that hold offensive opinions or do offensive things that piss off enough people could be rendered totally unhireable!

Like almost all people you're not looking at the bigger picture and you've fallen into a pattern of thinking that people (or at least their opinions) that disagree with you are evil and therefore it's ok if bad things happen to them, and in doing so you've failed to see that once the precedent has been set their is nothing stopping other people from doing the exact same thing to you!

 

[Shark62]

How exactly is that a straw man?



On what principle does that ideal stop!

What is stopping the ARU from deciding that instead of firing people once they have expressed an opinion they don't like they simply won't hire Christians (or any other groups that also hold said ideas) because they may hold these ideas!? Absolutely nothing that's what.

And if we're going to allow the ARU and NRL to discriminate (I can't think of a better word for it) against people simply for holding an offensive opinion (so not actually breaking the law or anything), then which other organisations are we going to allow to discriminate against based on the same premise and are who else apart from homophobes we going to allow them to discriminate against!?

For example should the ARU be able to discriminate against people in their organisation that express a different political opinion to them? On principal there's nothing stopping them from deciding to do that from now on, because as a company they don't hold to those opinions and they don't want their organisation and brand associated with that!?

Also if the ARU and NRL can do it then whats stopping e.g. banks from being able to refuse service to people because they don't want to be associated with them/their opinions? You'll say that's a straw man because the people that they are discriminating against aren't working for the banks, but that is BS, because on the same principle you could argue that them selling their services to people associates their business with those people and their opinions (and people have already made that argument, just look at Youtube and other social media sites pulling being forced to pull advertising from certain groups/individuals because the advertisers "don't want their brand associated with them").

But even if you don't accept that premise (which you won't because you're an authoritarian who hasn't perceived of a future where you political ideals aren't held in the majority), what's stopping any and every company from refusing to hire people based on their opinions!? Nothing really, nothing at all! So realistically a situation has been created where portions of society that hold offensive opinions or do offensive things that piss off enough people could be rendered totally unhireable!

Like almost all people you're not looking at the bigger picture and you've fallen into a pattern of thinking that people (or at least their opinions) that disagree with you are evil and therefore it's ok if bad things happen to them, and in doing so you've failed to see that once the precedent has been set their is nothing stopping other people from doing the exact same thing to you!

Thanks for the ever so brief response to PR. Nothing changes

 

[The Great Dane]

He’s been told this dozens of times. He just refuses to understand a very simple point.

You don't understand that what is happening could fundamentally undermine one of the key tenets of the social contract that we have maintained in Western civilisation since at least the enlightenment, and it's all because you want to be able to punish people for having ideas you don't like...

 

[The Great Dane]

Thanks for the ever so brief response to PR. Nothing changes

Some ideas are to complex to put into soundbites, I'm sorry that annoys you but it is what it is.

Frankly I also find it showing that you complain about the length of an argument rather than actually addressing it...

 

[Shark62]

You don't understand that what is happening could fundamentally undermine one of the key tenets of the social contract that we have maintained in Western civilisation since at least the enlightenment, and it's all because you want to be able to punish people for having ideas you don't like...

Crap. You’ve never even allowed to say whatever you like with out repercussions. Stop rewriting history. And by the way I’ve seen first hand the damage this stuff does to young gay people.

 

[Shark62]

Some ideas are to complex to put into soundbites, I'm sorry that annoys you but it is what it is.

Nup. You write hundreds of words and contribute very little. You are one of those crass bores who thinks writing lengthy tomes is indicative of intelligence. It isn’t.

 

[Surely]

Colonialists teach him to be a bigot then ban him from the game for believing the shit they brainwashed him with.

 

[Meth]

Whatever you think of Folau's opinion (and most find both him and his opinion unsavoury), this whole affair is nowhere near as straightforward as some are making it out to be.

I personally don't think he should have been sacked.

They should have just let nature (of the market) take its course.

 

[Meth]

Crap. You’ve never even allowed to say whatever you like with out repercussions. Stop rewriting history.

To be fair, it is only very recently that his views have started to be met with widespread public disapproval.

 

[The Great Dane]

Crap. You’ve never even allowed to say whatever you like with out repercussions. Stop rewriting history.

True there're repercussions to everything, however as a society we decide what is and what isn't an appropriate repercussion to every transgression, and for a long time now as a society we haven't accepted these sorts of repercussions for people expressing opinions that others find offensive and for bloody good reason!

Nobody, I repeat nobody, is saying that their aren't or should not be repercussions for freedom of speech and expression, we're saying that these repercussions (ruining peoples lives and threatening their livelihoods) are bad repercussions that go way to far.

And by the way I’ve seen first hand the damage this stuff does to young gay people.

And those young gay people would be a lot worse off right now if the people that offended the sensibilities of the majority by coming out in support of their rights were all treated in the manner that you are supporting that Folau be treated in!

We have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression for a very important reason, to protect those with minority opinions! And though your opinion my be a majority opinion at the moment it almost certainly will not be forever, so if you get rid of those protections now there's nothing stopping future generations from doing what you are supporting being done to Folau for his opinions to people that share your opinions in the future.