Crows Chat That 'Doesnt Deserve Its Own Thread' Thread part 2

[cm_perfect]

I think we've sort of been painted into a corner. With our tough start to the season we went pretty much with "best 22" and the only players that haven't survived from that period, for different reasons, are Milera and VB.

If we had crashed in the first 10 rounds, our selection policy might have been different, but it turned out to be "oh, whoops, we're in with a shot here, we have to keep going and not flirt with our form."

The 27 player thing is both a strength (continuity of a strong, winning group) and a threat - we're going in to finals with only 27 players who've played a game this year and if injuries strike we might have to blood a player in a final. I guess we're just going to have to run with it.

Agree with the above [emoji106]

Looks like we are taking the opportunity this week with a couple of players, I am sure Sauce would of played this week if we were playing a top 8 side or a final.

Will be interesting to see if we stick with RoB and Thommos replacement in Perth next week.

 

[beartoo]

Agree with the above [emoji106]

Looks like we are taking the opportunity this week with a couple of players, I am sure Sauce would of played this week if we were playing a top 8 side or a final.

Will be interesting to see if we stick with RoB and Thommos replacement in Perth next week.

I hope we do.

 

[Niximus]

But as they are not the question is irrelevant. Cross bridges when we come to them.
I am not cool with homophobic beliefs.

It's not irrelevant, it's trying to see if you're consistent with your argument.

The Salvos have a homophobic position > I am against the club working with them > I'm told I should look past their opinion and focus on the good they do.

Charity X has a racist position > I am against the club working with them > Am I told I should look past their position and focus on the good they do?

If you are consistent, I would expect that you would take the same position regarding the racist charity.

If you would be against working with a racist charity then we've found some common ground and we can work backwards to see where you fist draw your line.

 

[dogs105]

Does this mean that there is no position an organisation could take that we would want to distance ourselves from?

Is it an issue taking a stand against domestic violence because some of our supporters really do like to beat their spouse?

Where do you think the line is? Would you accept a sponsor who funded anti-climate change "research"? Cigarette manufacturer? Brewer? Weapons manufacturer?

Would you mind if the club aligned themselves with The Smith Family? Ronald McDonald House? Mary Potter Foundation?


I think that the Salvation Army is doing something good in this case, and supporting this cause is not endorsing any of their beliefs. I guess in my mind that the charitable arm of the organisation is not the same as the religious arm. This is certainly thought-provoking and I in no way share their views on same sex marriage. I just don't see supporting a particular cause as being an endorsement of the organisation running that cause.

 

[Tex200]

It's not irrelevant, it's trying to see if you're consistent with your argument.

The Salvos have a homophobic position > I am against the club working with them > I'm told I should look past their opinion and focus on the good they do.

Charity X has a racist position > I am against the club working with them > Am I told I should look past their position and focus on the good they do?

If you are consistent, I would expect that you would take the same position regarding the racist charity.

If you would be against working with a racist charity then we've found some common ground and we can work backwards to see where you fist draw your line.

I certainly see the point you are trying to make, but surely a religious based organisation who takes an anti gay marriage stance can't be equated with the Ku Kux Klan.

I think to suggest that is homophobic was like Gillard calling Abbott a mysoginist.

I'm quite comfortable with the AFC partnering with the Salvos, I would not be comfortable with them partnering The Klan.

Not every view on every topic needs to be extrapolated as being ......phobic.

 

[Niximus]

Where do you think the line is? Would you accept a sponsor who funded anti-climate change "research"? Cigarette manufacturer? Brewer? Weapons manufacturer?

Would you mind if the club aligned themselves with The Smith Family? Ronald McDonald House? Mary Potter Foundation?


I think that the Salvation Army is doing something good in this case, and supporting this cause is not endorsing any of their beliefs. I guess in my mind that the charitable arm of the organisation is not the same as the religious arm. This is certainly thought-provoking and I in no way share their views on same sex marriage.

I just don't see supporting a particular cause as being an endorsement of the organisation running that cause.

funded anti-climate change "research"? I'm pro science and part of science is being open to contradictory evidence. If they were funding legitimate research that was good science but happened to go against the consensus regarding climate change then so be it. If it was bad 'science' that set out with a conclusion in mind and skewed data towards that end, then no, I would be against partnering with them.

Cigarette manufacturer - I would be against the club partnering with a cigarette manufacturer.

Brewer - I am not anti-beer, I love beer, but I think alcohol advertising in sport should go the way of tobacco advertising in sport.

Weapons manufacturer - I would be against the club partnering with a weapons manufacturer

The Smith Family - From what I know of them, I wouldn't see any problem with this. IIRC they would have been a much better option to partner with for the clothing drive.

Ronald McDonald House - Not super keen on it, but not passionately against.

Mary Potter Foundation - Again, from what I know of them, I wouldn't see any problem with this.

 

[GreyCrow]

http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/...l-Statements/Positional-Statements/MARRIAGE-/
"In the face of open acceptance of alternative lifestyles, The Salvation Army affirms its absolute conviction that the marriage of one man to one woman is a sacred institution ordained by God. It is one of the most rewarding of life's decisions for any man or woman, providing the optimal conditions for family life."

I don't see anything homophobic about this position.

They acknowledge open acceptance of alternative lifestyles. All they are saying ( to me) is that in their opinion they support marriage between men and women.

 

[Niximus]

I certainly see the point you are trying to make, but surely a religious based organisation who takes an anti gay marriage stance can't be equated with the Ku Kux Klan.

I think to suggest that is homophobic was like Gillard calling Abbott a mysoginist.

I'm quite comfortable with the AFC partnering with the Salvos, I would not be comfortable with them partnering The Klan.

Not every view on every topic needs to be extrapolated as being ......phobic.

And surely you'd think it silly to suggest looking past the Klan's racist beliefs to focus on the charity work. In the same way that I find it a silly suggestion in this case, you aren't as concerned with marriage equality as I am.

That said, as I said earlier, their policy in favour of denying suffering people a painless and dignified passing, and of forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term are also reasons this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Regarding calling it homophobia, it's accurate for mine, they're literally claiming that a straight relationship is superior to anything else. Straight-supremacist would also work.

 

[Niximus]

I don't see anything homophobic about this position.

They acknowledge open acceptance of alternative lifestyles. All they are saying ( to me) is that in their opinion they support marriage between men and women.

They are saying that a straight marriage = "the optimal conditions for family life."

The implication that any other relationship = sub-optimal is clear.

Consider it claiming that a marriage within the same race provides "the optimal conditions for family life" and it's clearly a racist statement.

 

[Tex200]

And surely you'd think it silly to suggest looking past the Klan's racist beliefs to focus on the charity work. In the same way that I find it a silly suggestion in this case, you aren't as concerned with marriage equality as I am.

That said, as I said earlier, their policy in favour of denying suffering people a painless and dignified passing, and of forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term are also reasons this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Regarding calling it homophobia, it's accurate for mine, they're literally claiming that a straight relationship is superior to anything else. Straight-supremacist would also work.

You see I think a better example of straight supremacist as you would call it, was recently an Islamic preacher stated that homosexuality is such an abomination that a perpetrator would feel better by suiciding. That to me is homophobia.

I'm wondering if you speak out against Islamic preachers in the same way as you speak out against the Salvos?

 

[GreyCrow]

They are saying that a straight marriage = "the optimal conditions for family life."

The implication that any other relationship = sub-optimal is clear.

Consider it claiming that a marriage within the same race provides "the optimal conditions for family life" and it's clearly a racist statement.

They are being disingenuous .They are saying that procreation is the optimal condition for family life. And they aren't wrong. Its a no-nothing statement that acts as a dog whistle for its followers but doesn't offend when read by a non-follower.

 

[Tex200]

They are saying that a straight marriage = "the optimal conditions for family life."

The implication that any other relationship = sub-optimal is clear.

Consider it claiming that a marriage within the same race provides "the optimal conditions for family life" and it's clearly a racist statement.

They are a religious organisation and so naturally they apply the religious interpretation of what constitutes marriage. Marriage was a matter of religion well before it became a matter of law.

I've no doubt that in context of provision of care an support they would treat a gay person equally, and if they didn't I would absolutely be affronted

 

[Niximus]

You see I think a better example of straight supremacist as you would call it, was recently an Islamic preacher stated that homosexuality is such an abomination that a perpetrator would feel better by suiciding. That to me is homophobia.

I'm wondering if you speak out against Islamic preachers in the same way as you speak out against the Salvos?

I condemn anyone who would say such a thing or shares that opinion. I'm not sure why you'd think given my position stated in here that a different religion would be let off more lightly.

 

[Niximus]

They are a religious organisation and so naturally they apply the religious interpretation of what constitutes marriage. Marriage was a matter of religion well before it became a matter of law.

I've no doubt that in context of provision of care an support they would treat a gay person equally, and if they didn't I would absolutely be affronted

And it was a matter of property before it was a matter of religion. We've moved past that though.

 

[Tex200]

I condemn anyone who would say such a thing or shares that opinion. I'm not sure why you'd think given my position stated in here that a different religion would be let off more lightly.

That wasn't my question - do you speak out publicly about it as youve done here?

 

[Niximus]

That wasn't my question - do you speak out publicly about it as youve done here?

I used to frequently post on SRP and many of my posts were about that, yes. For my own sanity, I post there much less nowadays.

Have I posted about it in the Crows board? No, because it hasn't come up. Note that my post regarding the salvos was prompted by the club teaming up with them, I didn't just post it out of the blue. If the club had partnered with a mosque I would have done the same thing.

 

[Tex200]

I used to frequently post on SRP and many of my posts were about that, yes. For my own sanity, I post there much less nowadays.

Have I posted about it in the Crows board? No, because it hasn't come up. Note that my post regarding the salvos was prompted by the club teaming up with them, I didn't just post it out of the blue. If the club had partnered with a mosque I would have done the same thing.

Fair enough.

My issue is that I believe that people and institutions with softer views are soft targets. The harder targets with worse views tend to be ignored.

I guess all that can be said I if the Salvos do offend you then you have the right to not participate and, assuming you're a member, you have the right to express your thoughts to the club and request they don't partner with them.

 

[Doc_]

Straight marriage is the optimal condition for raising a child. (In fact its the only way you can procreate)
Gays should not be allowed to adopt.

 

[Niximus]

Fair enough.

My issue is that I believe that people and institutions with softer views are soft targets. The harder targets with worse views tend to be ignored.

I guess all that can be said I if the Salvos do offend you then you have the right to not participate and, assuming you're a member, you have the right to express your thoughts to the club and request they don't partner with them.

IMO it's not about softer targets. What you perceive as softer targets copping more criticism is increased discussion because there's people on both sides.

If I posted condemning Islam for homophobia, nobody is arguing against me, we're mostly on the same page there.

When I post about the Salvos, you see how many pages we've had opposing me.

As someone who generally likes to have these discussions, believe me, the 'soft targets' are anything but easy.

I am a member and I did draft an email, may or may not send it. On here though, all I did was express that I was disappointed with the partnership.

 

[Niximus]

Straight marriage is the optimal condition for raising a child. (In fact its the only way you can procreate)
Gays should not be allowed to adopt.

Oh dear.

If you think you can only procreate in a marriage, please take a biology course.

 

[Scorpus]

Straight marriage is the optimal condition for raising a child. (In fact its the only way you can procreate)
Gays should not be allowed to adopt.

Nope

 

[Doc_]

Oh dear.

If you think you can only procreate in a marriage, please take a biology course.

You know I meant to reproduce it takes a man and a woman. Why try and twist it to suit your cause?

 

[Mattrox]

They are a religious organisation and so naturally they apply the religious interpretation of what constitutes marriage. Marriage was a matter of religion well before it became a matter of law.

I've no doubt that in context of provision of care an support they would treat a gay person equally, and if they didn't I would absolutely be affronted

I agree. There are some churches who oppose gay marriage, but do not oppose gay civil union because the religious definition of marriage is man and woman. And those same churches openly welcome gay couples and do not preach hate against anyone.

Then you have Westboro who are completely homophobic, with a capital H.A.T.E.

There are some that oppose gay people and therefore are anti gay marriage. There are some who oppose the marriage without hating on anyone.

 

[Niximus]

You know I meant to reproduce it takes a man and a woman. Why try and twist it to suit your cause?

Someone's ability to impregnate or be impregnated by a particular other person, has absolutely no correlation to their ability to raise a child.

 

[GreyCrow]

Never heard of Ethical team Support before