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

[SBD82]

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...

You said that using the same principles as this CIVIL case someone could be jailed in a CRIMINAL case.

I know it’s ridiculous, it’s a long bow to draw, but you made the comparison. How could I have known that you weren’t stupid enough to believe the dumb things that you wrote?

 

[The Great Dane]

Poor down trodden millionaire celebrities.

#ThemToo

So because somebody is rich it's okay to strip away their human rights?

Do you really want to go down that path, because the last ideological group that went down that path butchered tens of millions of people!

 

[The Great Dane]

You said that using the same principles as this CIVIL case someone could be jailed in a CRIMINAL case.

No I didn't and you are just being disingenuous at this point.

 

[ULYSSES]

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.

You must be right, I think in my wildest dreams that Rugby Australia asked for Izzy's academic transcript and references from his public relations people and then decided he was suitable material to play rugby.
Yeah right! Who cared if he could tackle, run, catch or whatever as long as he was a faultless example, give him the money.

 

[Pommy]

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.

Why lie?

 

[SBD82]

No I didn't and you are just being disingenuous at this point.

If you don’t want to defend dumb arguments, don’t make them.

 

[Pommy]

You must be right, I think in my wildest dreams that Rugby Australia asked for Izzy's academic transcript and references from his public relations people and then decided he was suitable material to play rugby.
Yeah right! Who cared if he could tackle, run, catch or whatever as long as he was a faultless example, give him the money.

Where does the money for his wages come from?
Sportsmen and women are glorified advertising agents who are also capable of playing a sport well. We can debate if that’s a good or bad situation but nobody gets paid by throwing a ball around.

 

[t-ba]

He can come back on the condition every member of the crowd is given a rainbow coloured dildo to throw at him.

 

[SBD82]

He can come back on the condition every member of the crowd is given a rainbow coloured dildo to throw at him.

Careful now, you’re about to be called a bigot.

 

[t-ba]

Careful now, you’re about to be called a bigot.

Fine.

They won't be rainbow coloured.

 

[Canard]

So because somebody is rich it's okay to strip away their human rights?

Do you really want to go down that path, because the last ideological group that went down that path butchered tens of millions of people!

Godwin's Law invoked

 

[SBD82]

Godwin's Law invoked

No. He never mentioned genocide. That would be an absurd thing to say.

Stop being disingenuous.

 

[ULYSSES]

People are concentrating on Folau's supposed breech of Rugby Australia's Code of Conduct. Folau will be claiming that the CoC is invalid under statute law(Anti discrimination ….it is illegal to terminate someone for practicing their religion). It is a strong case. Additionally I imagine his lawyers will submit that the punishment was over the top when measured against other punishments for offences society normally considers more repugnant.eg Wife pashing, drug dealing , ball tampering, public urination, public intercourse etc.

 

[unforgiven]

Not very often I would say this but The Great Dane has nailed this thread!

 

[unforgiven]

Wife pashing

Each to there own but I didn't think that was so bad?

 

[ULYSSES]

Each to there own but I didn't think that was so bad?

GOOD PICKUP. GUILTY OF THAT MYSELF.(CAPS LOCK)

 

[ULYSSES]

Each to there own but I didn't think that was so bad?

Their,

 

[unforgiven]

Their,

Lol, I hate that. Stupid autocorrect lol

 

[Canard]

No. He never mentioned genocide. That would be an absurd thing to say.

Stop being disingenuous.

Haha

 

[typicalfan]

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.

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.


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.

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.


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...

Nope, not saying that at all, sorry. You don't know what responsibilities people ask for, if I apply for a managerial position I want the extra money but need to take on extra responsibility.

Some roles do have more responsibilities than others. Some people are mandatory reporters and some are not.

I am not saying because Folau is a celebrity he cannot say what he says, he is allowed to, but if Folau is signing as the face of Rugby in Australia then there would likely be some conditions to his contract outside the Rugby field, in fact I would be surprised if any professional team in the country didn't have something similar. If you disagree with having those conditions then you are free to think that way, I am not trying to change your mind but let's not pretend they don't exist. Just don't put words in my mouth because you don't like my argument.