- Banned
- #451
You said: "Let’s leave politics aside and get on with enjoying the footy..."
People should stop talking about things you don't want to talk about?
Analysis Is it acceptable for AFL clubs to be politically biased?
- Thread starter Lockyer24
- Start date
- Tagged users None
People should stop talking about things you don't want to talk about?
- Banned
- #453
Don't be sad.
Discussed years ago when it was topical. But here's you demanding answers like an aggressive beggar with halitosis.
There is a degree of exclusivity about marking our journey from a wilderness to the current day. It works well as a summer date where people can get outdoors. But I wouldn't put a line through any date if the disaffected enter into an agreement not to protest on the national day.
Would like to see Aboriginals/Islanders surveyed as to their thoughts. A question could be added to this year's census. A recent Roy Morgan poll found more than 70% of that group in favour of keeping Jan 26.
Masotiger
All Australian
I don't believe sporting clubs need to get involved in social/political issues. There are other elected and non-elected representatives better qualified to handle these matters. In saying that, I think as a whole, a body like the AFL can assist in promoting things like inclusion, etc.
However, my biggest issue is with people like yourself who demonize those who hold different views to yours or the so-called populist views. Take Margaret Court for example and the disgraceful way she has been demonize by those who should know better. You do not have to agree with her views, but she is PERFECTLY ENTITLED to them. And they should be correctly reported, not distorted for effect. For, you might be surprised to learn, there are many in the community who share her views.
Similarly, what right did the AFL have to change its logo to YES during the same-sex marriage debate. Stick to administering the game and keep your nose out of these social debates. People like you must live in lala land if you think everybody agrees with it. I don't know of which generation you are, but let me tell you, to us "dinosaur boomers" 40 odd years ago the thought of 2 blokes getting married was laughable. Now it's a reality. Guess what kiddo, in 40 years time you'd be able to marry your daughter - that's progress for you.
As for this crap about "Invasion Day" - maybe these organisers should look up the definition of "invasion". And if they believe that's what happened on 26 January 1788, they're drawing a long bow. I don't care when Australia Day is celebrated, but how about acknowledgement for what has been done for the indigenous population in recent times. History is littered with examples of the strong majority oppressing the weak minority; however, I know of no other nation which has acknowledged its mistakes and has made tangible efforts in reconciliation. Dedicated Government Department, reversion to original names, celebrations like the Dreamtime scheduling, etc, etc. But no, we can't show any levels of satisfaction. "What else have the Romans done for us..??"
In summary, let me give you a little advice which should assist as you navigate your way through this thing called life. Respect other opinions if you want your opinion respected. Treat others the way you'd like to be treated.
- Banned
- #457
If you're going to call other people "spiteful", then your own beliefs are entirely relevant.
Do gay people go to hell? That's not spiteful?
Like I said, Australia became a self-governing federation on May 9. What's wrong with that?
That's not a very compelling argument. That's just you liking it being in summer because you like it.
You don't get to demand that. As you say, "it's a free world". People are allowed to protest.
That aside, you are now saying you could potentially support the date being changed from January 26?
I don't know. Never been there.
Is that the date that the disaffected want? It's no good the government setting the date. We'd just have two Invasion Days.
I don't get to demand anything. But it's the only reason for changing the date and the only condition under which I'd vote in favour.
If you had engaged in the right thread you would know the answer. The end.
- Banned
- #459
She's entitled to her views. She can also be criticised for them. Works both ways.
What right? They're entitled to change their logo however they please.
Was the AFL wrong to take a stand against racism over the years? Surely they should steer clear of "social debates".
Do you think it is unreasonable for indigenous folks to say "we can't celebrate this date"?
If you don't care about the date, you'd be cool with it being changed to reflect this?
Like you "respect" the views of those who want the date changed?
And frankly, not all opinions are worthy of respect. Some are rubbish. That's why we have conversation and debate: to determine which opinions can be reasonably defended.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #460
But what do you believe?
You've never been to heaven or hell but you believe they exist? Where do gay people end up?
This is such an obvious dodge. We can't guarantee 100 per cent consensus so let's just leave it on January 26? You think that's a good argument?
It's not a "condition" that you should seek to enforce if you believe, as you claim, that "it's a free world".
Do you ever reflect on your own hypocrisy?
It's their logo, they have every right to change it.
You do realise it wasn't compulsory, nobody forced them to do it. They were free to choose to do it.
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,298
- 235,245
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #462
That's the way, double down.
Personally I find it wanky... and a waste of energy... I’d much rather they focused on kicking more goals than the team they were playing that week.
But that said in this day and age of corporate sponsors that are s**t scared of being associated with anything non PC it’s now a fact of life.
Not a big thing but still wanky
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,298
- 235,245
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #464
Maybe you should.
Invasion
noun
noun: invasion; plural noun: invasions
an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
"Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812"
an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
"there was a brief pitch invasion when Sunderland scored"
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
"random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy"
There have been as many as 500 massacres of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. And mass killings occurred well into the middle of the 20th century, researchers have said.
The disturbing revelations were released by the University of Newcastle on Friday as part of the second stage of its online massacre map, which now covers frontier violence that occurred from the arrival of the first fleet in 1788 to the colonisation of the Northern Territory, South Australia and remote Queensland up to 1930.
The map now details about 250 massacres that meet strict criteria of standards of proof, covering every state except Western Australia.
The estimated death toll from those incidents is about 6,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and fewer than 100 colonists, with an average of 25 Indigenous people killed in every massacre.
The disturbing revelations were released by the University of Newcastle on Friday as part of the second stage of its online massacre map, which now covers frontier violence that occurred from the arrival of the first fleet in 1788 to the colonisation of the Northern Territory, South Australia and remote Queensland up to 1930.
The map now details about 250 massacres that meet strict criteria of standards of proof, covering every state except Western Australia.
The estimated death toll from those incidents is about 6,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and fewer than 100 colonists, with an average of 25 Indigenous people killed in every massacre.
Evidence of 250 massacres of Indigenous Australians mapped
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were killed until at least 1930, often with police sanction, researchers say
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
Completely missing the point
Virgin Dog
Cancelled
- Oct 29, 2017
- 9,734
- 20,645
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
How so? There's no logical argument behind the anti-abortion stance, it's always limited to "my religion told me it's bad and I can't think for myself"Completely missing the point
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
Complete missing the point
The logical argument is sanctity of life. This is the starting point on any debate on abortion. Many people who are pro-abortion, are so on pragmatic grounds. We don’t agree with the termination of life of an unborn child, but we understand the consequences of legislation that denies the mother option of undertaking such a procedure in a controlled environment. We also understand that pregnancy occurs under a variety of circumstances.
- Banned
- #469
Look how Ron The Bear ejects when his ridiculous arguments are challenged and his hypocrisy exposed.
Just to add in a tad bit of humour here, the social media marketing guy that started 15 years ago is now the CEO of Essendon.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,856
- 43,240
- AFL Club
- Essendon
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
It'd be amusing if it was true. But you've got your CEO's mixed up, Rodski is CEO of the Storm.
A quick LinkedIn search shows Xavier Campbell personally lists himself as starting at Essendon in sales and marketing in 2009.
As I said it was a bit of humour, social media barely existed 15 years ago, let alone that position.
Never change Dons fans.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
Yes I'm sure that's what you meant. You definitely didn't make a mistake in thinking Rodski was our CEO after his name had been splashed in the media in the past 24 hours for his new role at the Storm.
Nope instead you made a "joke" that made zero sense.
You definitely 100% didn't and won't admit to a mistake.
Speaking of never changing.
