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

[Knight Vision]

No it wouldn't, and nobody is going after him for incitement to violence.

No they arent however that's the trajectory of the argument.

The lawful right to marginalize sections of society under the protection of religious belief. Would it therefore be possible to call for the death of infidels quoting the Quran? That's someones religious belief is it not ?

 

[SBD82]

I haven't actually brought up the law at all, only philosophical principals, so I don't know what you are talking about.

This bit:

Using that logic you could argue that sending people to jail for things they have said isn't infringing on their freedom of speech, because you know, 'the tweets are still up and there's nothing stopping him from tweeting more, so he can say what he likes, but if he actually says it we're going to throw him in jail, and for any repeat offence we'll extend his term, but that's not infringing on his freedom of speech because he can still say it'

 

[typicalfan]

The disagreement isn't whether Israel broke his contract or not, it's whether or not a company should be able to enforce such responsibilities at all!



His main source of income is gone and he has effectively been blacklisted from his profession, if that's not destroying his livelihood then I'd hate to see what you think is. And French Rugby and the NRL won't touch him because they are scared of the mob coming for them next.



Again the argument isn't whether they can, it's whether they should be allowed to.

Though to be clear I don't think that it's clear that RA legally can do what they have at all, but that is another argument, and not one that I'm in a position to argue because I'm not a lawyer.

His main source of income is ruined through his own actions. He knew what he was doing and the potential outcome and did it anyway. His public profile does come with extra responsibilities as you represent the brand very closely. I am sure for this reason some reasonable expectations are given.

The argument as to whether they can enforce it at all legally is not my expertise but I don't think it is over the top at all.

 

[Twizzle]

Folau hits $500k in donations as $7m property empire revealed

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...ALMQlTzpnSB-pPJczgXSMlQMcXVrAMo8YeoGT2-JlGQGA

 

[The Great Dane]

So should Izzy have been able to say politely he has a dislike for other races? And should RA have to stand by this?

There's not a great deal that I agree with Gorge Brandis on, but in this case he put it better then I could- "People do have a right to be bigots you know".

The only difference I'd make is I'd say that you have the freedom to be a bigot, as rights come with other connotations.

And it can be no other way, because if you don't have the freedom to express hate then you don't have freedom of expression, if you don't freedom of expression then you don't have a free society, and that is one of the main goals of a Liberal (the philosophy, not the political party that aren't actually Liberals)" society, to create a society that is as free as possible.

So yes, provided that they aren't breaking any laws like actively discriminating against people, inciting to violence, etc, etc, racist people should be able to express their racism just as anybody else is allowed to express their ideas.

Though Voltaire didn't actually say this, this quote attributed to him puts into words my opinion of bigots freedom of speech better then I ever could- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I also find the idea that by employing a person you are endorsing everything that they do, say, and think, to be utterly f**king ridiculous..

The ARU hire him to play football, not as a representative of their moral and ethical opinions, and so long as he doesn't express those opinions while representing them (which he didn't do by the way) they shouldn't have any impact on his freedom of speech.

What they should of done is chucked out a disclaimer that Israels opinions don't represent the opinions of the ARU and left it at that.

If not why is this ok to censor? Are you pretending we don’t already have this kind of censorship in our society?

It's not ok to censor almost at all (there are outliers that create exceptions to every rule, in this case speech that directly endangers people like incitement, defamation, slander, etc, are those outliers), and (almost) any censorship is the mark of an authoritarian society, and ours is getting more and more authoritarian.

I acknowledge the censorship in our society, it's f**king disgusting and shouldn't exist, but the even bigger shame about the censorship in our society is the hypocritical nature of it, but that is a whole other discussion.

 

[The Great Dane]

No they arent however that's the trajectory of the argument.

The lawful right to marginalize sections of society under the protection of religious belief. Would it therefore be possible to call for the death of infidels quoting the Quran? That's someones religious belief is it not ?

Firstly, people do every single day and nobody blinks an eyelid.

Secondly, calling for the death of infidels and qafir is incitement to violence, which is a no no for obvious reasons, but if there was a Muslim person saying that the Koran and/or the Hadiths says to kill qafir that don't submit (i.e. acknowledging that the text does in fact say that, but not actually calling for violence themselves), or even if their was Muslim simply saying that they don't like qafir in a manner similar to racism (though it's not really racism I can't think of a better word at the moment), then that would be totally fine. They'd be well within their freedom to do just that if they so wish.

 

[The Great Dane]

His main source of income is ruined through his own actions. He knew what he was doing and the potential outcome and did it anyway. His public profile does come with extra responsibilities as you represent the brand very closely. I am sure for this reason some reasonable expectations are given.

The argument as to whether they can enforce it at all legally is not my expertise but I don't think it is over the top at all.

So you're saying that because he is famous he should be treated differently to the average person?

Who's doing the discriminating now!

 

[typicalfan]

So you're saying that because he is famous he should be treated differently to the average person?

Who's doing the discriminating now!

Who is discriminating? The role afforded to him gives him a lot of money and a public profile. This is not discrimination and I absolutely reject the assertion.

You say Israel Folau was paid just to play Rugby Union without any knowledge of the contract he signed and what other responsibilities may come with the role. To suggest people with public profiles do not have extra responsibilities is profoundly ignorant.

I have made my point clear on the subject

 

[Pommy]

The ARU hire him to play football,

Paragraph after paragraph and you come up with this. Nobody is getting paid a million dollars to throw a ball around. You’re not stupid enough to believe that.

 

[Legion]

Unfortunately for you I probably read a lot more than you!

IRREFUTABLE?

How does your genetics explain people missing the rhesus monkey gene? Tough one that.

I love the proof of macroevolution you gave there. Oh that's right you didn't.

Can somebody please give some evidence for Macroevolution.

Dinosaur bones millions of years old yet nothing with any form of macroevolution. GAME OVER.

Why are you atheists so avoidant of the request for proof of Macroevolution anywhere in the world?

You do know that from 6000+ years ago there was the prophecy of the lords coming. Not sure where that leaves your Pagan theory. But there is a clear difference between Yeshua and a solar entity.

5000 years ago you have Babylon and Babel. What pagan time period are you describing here?

When did 22 December start then?

I assume your pagans are quite modern.

The large dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor that plunged the world into darkness (The OT described this as a Great Flood. You know, the one where the polar bears swam to the Middle East, sloths from S.America etc etc & where all species regenerated from one pair when we know that that isn't possible? )
Smaller dinosaurs survived such as crocodiles & some some species evolved into lizards & birds.

Not sure what you mean by "macroevolution"? Oh, is that where God clicks his fingers & voila! a new species appears?

Parts of the Bible & doctrine was taken from Pagan sources. Easter was a Pagan celebration as was Christmas.
The drinking of blood & eating of flesh is Pagan. No self respecting Jew would consider such a thing much less a Rabbi.
A Messiah born to a 'virgin' (sure she was) from humble beginnings was a Pagan theme that pre-existed Jesus.
The caricature of the Devil himself was based on the Pagan demi-God of Fertility, Pan, from his horns, goatee, tail to his cloven feet.
Most Christians break the Commandment to keep the Sabbath holy by going to church on the Pagan day of worship, SUNday. (All hail Mithras! lol)

The OT prophets didn't get anything right. They're still waiting for a bloke called Manny.

I could go on but as this is a footy forum & the thread is about Izzy, I'll leave it at that.
Folou should not have signed the terms of agreement if they conflicted with his beliefs.
Despite the fact that I disagree, I respect someone who stands up for what they believe.
A person should be able to say what they like in a church or on social media. Personally I wouldn't read his posts because I'm not a Christian.
Snowflakes just love going out of their way to find something to be offended by.

The crux of the matter is that the RUs terms of agreement are discriminatory against Christians & their beliefs. No-ones bothered to mention that nice piece of politically correct hypocrisy.

Izzy can come & play for the Tigers for $100k a year. As money is the root of all evil, he should be happy with that, lol.

 

[Legion]

Sounds fun but hell won't be that either lol your not God, you don't make the rules.

We won't be in the clouds either. Gods people will live on a new earth. New rules, happy times.

Check out the theology, you gonna get old one day. Good to know your options

Either way ...

A "new earth"? Gee, haven't heard that one before. You might want to read your Bible again; it doesn't mention any new earth.

According to the Bible, there's only room for 144,000 in Heaven, all from the tribes of Israel.
Even if you were a Jew, it's fair to say that you'd be shit out of luck as it would have put up the No Vacancy sign a long time ago.

But you know, you could always hope that the Big Guy will take pity & whack up a few tents in His backyard. Who knows?

 

[Saxon]

Bloody god-botherers.
Won't donate money for children dying of cancer but will give thousands for a multi-millionaire religious bigot to try and justify his 'right' to hate speech.

That'll do me.

 

[2 weeks]

 

[The Great Dane]

This bit:

What about that bit?

It's not talking about the law...

 

[SBD82]

What about that bit?

It's not talking about the law...

People will be thrown in jail but it has nothing to do with criminal law?

 

[The Great Dane]

Who is discriminating?

You!

By saying that celebrities should be treated differently by society (and I guess probably even under the law) you are discriminating against them because of their social status.

The role afforded to him gives him a lot of money and a public profile. This is not discrimination and I absolutely reject the assertion.

You can reject it all you like, but you are literally saying that because he is famous he has "extra responsibilities" (i.e. he should be treated differently because he is more visible) and therefore should be treated differently, and that it is discrimination.

That is literally holding somebody to a different standard then others because of a characteristic.

You say Israel Folau was paid just to play Rugby Union without any knowledge of the contract he signed and what other responsibilities may come with the role.

I never said anything of the sort.

I said that the argument I'm presenting isn't about whether or not there were clauses in his contract that he broke (whether he knew about them or not is irrelevant), and that it's actually about whether the ARU (and other companies) should have the power to enforce such clauses on their employees.

To suggest people with public profiles do not have extra responsibilities is profoundly ignorant.

Nope they don't have any extra responsibilities at all, they are just private citizens that happen to be widely known by the population.

They didn't ask for "extra responsibilities" and trying to force them on them is not only giving celebrities way more power then they actually have it's wrong.

I have made my point clear on the subject

And whether you realise it or not your point is basically that it's okay to treat him how he's being treated because he is a rich celebrity...

 

[The Great Dane]

People will be thrown in jail but it has nothing to do with criminal law?

I was responding to somebody else's idea on the level of philosophical principle by pointing out that there's no logical reason why it couldn't be used to justify sending people to jail.

I was not literally talking about people going to jail, nor was I talking about the ins and outs of criminal law... Frankly I think that was pretty bloody obvious as well...

 

[ULYSSES]

Bloody god-botherers.
Won't donate money for children dying of cancer but will give thousands for a multi-millionaire religious bigot to try and justify his 'right' to hate speech.

That'll do me.

What is a God Botherer? Must be someone that annoys God. But you must consider yourself some sort of deity in order to presume who gave to cancer research and who didn't. Please quote your source .

 

[Canard]

Poor down trodden millionaire celebrities.

#ThemToo

 

[The Great Dane]

Paragraph after paragraph and you come up with this. Nobody is getting paid a million dollars to throw a ball around. You’re not stupid enough to believe that.

That is literally what he is f**king being payed to do!

He is literally payed to be a full time professional athlete that plays RU, because he is a good athlete that makes a team better, attracts eyes, and "I guess" makes money for the ARU.

Suggesting otherwise is you trying to politicise something that isn't really political.