I understand why people donât like Mundine but this issue seems to have been blown out of all proportion (and often biasing their analysis based on personal opinion of the man, not the argument). There would have been <u>no</u> reaction if it was anyone with a lower profile. - I agree, but, as Mundine is a public figure, of course his comments will have a media reaction. The perception by the public that Mundine is a spokesperson for Muslims and Aborigines resulted in their rebuke. - I don't agree with that. I believe it is because people don't like Mundine, period. I don't believe that his race or religion is the reason. If the resentment for Mundine had already not been pushed by the media, would the story have left our shores? - I believe that the only reason that the story left our shores is because Mundine is fighting for a world title. If he was still a league player, its international coverage would have been much smaller. If Mundine truly thinks he is a spokesperson for Muslims then itâs probably a flaw. If someone perceives him to be the spokesperson for Muslims then it is their flaw. Does anyone actually believe that all Muslims and Aborigines feel the same way as Mundine? If not, there is no problem. - I only perceive Mundine to be a spokesman for himself. I don't know what other people think. I agree and donât remember saying otherwise, but many feel that personal attacks on Mundine are warranted when disagreement would do. - I was referring to your comment suggesting that people believed that everybody "should toe the line". People can respond any way that they like. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with what people have said, just that they, like Mundine, have the choice to say what they want. Mundine has given reasons for his view why Australia should not get involved but those who disagree seem to rely on the general perception that he is wrong, and are using bias (from his other actions) to judge his statement. The reason people are outraged must stem from the fact that they donât like what he said â Iâm still waiting to hear why they think his opinion is wrong, ie the 1,2,3. - Fair enough. I'm not involved in this part of the debate. My point was based on the argument that he should stay away from politics, he did not bring the topic up thus it canât be said that he instigated the issue. This was probably based on something said on another forum. - Fair enough, but I stand by my comments that he must take responsibility for what he said, and not blame the interviewer for asking the question. That is what I donât get. People would have others silenced rather than have them speak a contrary opinion (even you said he has the right to his opinion). Why does it bother you so much that he said what he said? Would the world have been a better pace and the âwarâ over if he had remained quiet? Would he be a better person if he believed (what he said) but in actual fact did not say it? Why should he face punishment (ie "should take full responsibility) for expressing such an opinion? - I never said anything about what Mundine said. What I was saying was that Mundine is responsible for his comments- not the interviewer. It was his choice to say what he did. The interviewer was not at fault for asking the question. The only person <u>really</u> affected by this is Mundine himself, through the potential boxing bans (you have the freedom of speech but if you use it you WILL be punished). Wasnât it Les Darcy who faced similar opposition during one of the wars (not for what he said though) â with hindsight, was it justified? - I don't know anything about Les Darcy. Anyone else affected either supports his views but feels that he has hurt that argument with his manner of speaking, OR opposes the view but has such a low self belief that any counter argument throws them way off balance. - Hey, that's your opinion. I haven't been arguing about what Mundine actually said. Rather, I've been commenting on why people reacted in the way that they did. I agree that Mundine's past comments, on unrelated issues, have led people to react in a stronger fashion than if somebody else had said what he did. My point is that it is hardly surprising, and Mundine has built this reputation for himself. See my first response paragraph, and IMHO he still is - a self-confident, athletic, non drinking, non smoking, religious young man who believes in telling the truth, and being himself,regardless of what the public and media pressure want. - To be honest, while I agree that Mundine usually speaks his mind, I find it very hard to believe that Mundine believes that he is telling the truth when he says that he proved himself to be the world's best rugby league player. I, personally, find that very hard to comprehend. I have never spoken to one person who agrees that he even came close. I also can't agree on him being a good role model. I don't care if he talks himself up - I usually just laugh. What I don't like is when he disrespects other people, other religions, and uses racially derogatory terms, in the process. I don't find it very impressive, at all.
