Religion Folau

[medusala]

Sales rise and fall, 3% would be within the standard deviation.

lol, using standard deviation on actual sales.

But hey, I'm just using sound logic.

No you arent.

Again, it was figures just after the campaign, current figures don't indicate any major loss. You're hoping it is.. but you're actually wrong like usual. Just like every student gets PR for free.

https://www.marketingweek.com/2019/01/18/gillette-brand-takes-hit-as-metoo-ad-backfires/

 

[medusala]

So sales fell in opposition to the company's other sectors? Not the desired result from a high-profile ad. (I still buy Gillette because the products are good.)

Meh, there are heaps of competitors now who are way cheaper, just as good and do home delivery.

 

[Bradesmaen]

lol, using standard deviation on actual sales.



No you arent.



https://www.marketingweek.com/2019/01/18/gillette-brand-takes-hit-as-metoo-ad-backfires/

Literally posts an article to argue against me but proves me right. Old grey man ain't what he used to be.

 

[medusala]

Literally posts an article to argue against me but proves me right.

Melbourne have won more flags in the last 40 years than you have been right on here.

Go away, read stats 101 and get back to us.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Melbourne have won more flags in the last 40 years than you have been right on here.

Go away, read stats 101 and get back to us.

Nursing home have no internet yesterday?

 

[Echoes]

3% sales decline is massive for a company like Gillette dealing in hundreds of millions units every quarter.
Not within standard deviation at all

Yep.

Anyone who thinks Gillette haven’t taken a hit after the ‘best a man can be’ bollocks, are likely politically biased and would likely never admit that they had no matter what evidence you put in front of them.

Now this latest obesity acceptance abomination.

Surely the third wave nutjob they have coming up with this shit has to go now.

Enough is enough.

 

[Carringbush2010]

That's the big question. If it is deemed hateful then where is the source of the hate coming from? Should that hate be allowed to be published?

Are you asking if any future publishing of the bible should be terminated?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Thought bubble.

The bible, which Folau paraphrased from, is used to swear the oath to tell the truth in our court system.

Wouldn't that be somewhat hypocritical? I can see it now in the courtroom, while placing his palm on the holy bible:

"Israel, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" "yes"

"Israel, is it true you posted hate speech from the holy bible?"

 

[TheSunGod]

The truth is an offence, but not a sin.

Bob Marley.

 

[raskolnikov]

 

[FrakturedHalo]

He is free to express whatever he wants to. And his employer is free to sack him if they believe those actions are not in line with what they expect from their employees.

They are certainly free to sack him, however I believe this is the precise sticking point that is going to ultimately cost RA a lot of money and Folau’s appeal upheld in that their actions were manifestly and grossly punitive for the alleged breaches that are said to have occurred. Especially given there are multiple examples of other public scandals involving other players that could be said to also have breached various and numerous items in the same code of conduct involving domestic violence, rapes, public indecency, assaults the list goes on yet none of the offenders in those cases had their contracts summarily terminated...and one has to consider well which of these infractions and in some cases crimes are considered more deserving of termination from their positions? An offensive but otherwise non-violent post on social media, or actual violence committed against a person/s requiring medical treatment? Offence is taken not meted out one must remember and is an intangible subjective thing to quantify or allege, whereas the act of committing assault or other violent and lewd acts is easily observable and the amount of “damage” purported by the offender easily quantified and proven, as is their intent to inflict it. Is it simply because there are more voices saying “I’m offended!!” this time that’s given rise to such an excessive punishment being meted out? And does (and should) this unquantifiable, anecdotal and intangible ‘emotional injuries’ let’s call it for the sake of defining the resulting effect (which legally is required if RA are going to argue why their actions were justified and warranted to that extent, some may call it mass hysteria or the bandwagon effect but each to their own I’ll try and be as unprovocative as possible for the purposes of this discussion) have more weight than the real observable injuries inflicted upon one, maybe more but less than a handful of people?
I deliberately have used this example by the way as they won’t be able to use the argument that they have terminated him on the basis of consumer sentiment or perception of the RA or Wallaby’s brand, because legally there was no brand association in the platform Folau used to express these views of his. It was a personal account, it did not explicitly identify him as an employee of blah blah blah. he did not make the comments whilst acting as an employee or representative of the organisation or fulfilling the requirements of his role, so say like during a match interview or press conference or some kind of sponsor endorsement or that kind of thing, nor was it during a game or practice so the “in the workplace” position fails. Just because someone has signed an employment contract does not equal loss of all autonomy and the obligation to abide at all times by the policies dictated by your employer when not on work time, as it shouldn’t. People may not like nor agree with this but this is how the legalities of it are going to play out. And no, corporate sponsors worried about their brand perception by association is too long of a bow to be able to draw it’s not solid enough to be allowable by even the most receptive magistrate or tribunal panel.

 

[masai]

Given written warning, accepts warning. Takes no measures to legally debate contract terms. Eg. Brings in player union, his own legal reps.

Does it again after being warned.

How many warnings does he want ?.

As I said earlier, he was player 19 in the rankings, he would have already been sent to Coventry.

 

[HairyO]

I'd say the concept of a giant rainbow serpent forming the landscape of outback Australia is every bit as absurd and laughable as Folau's views or the suicide bomber who thinks he's going to be furnished with a whole bunch of virgins in the afterlife.

The AFL dedicate a round to this belief and all the players have to buy in. If any dared to call it a farce they would be ruined as footballers.

Its not about right and wrong. Its about doing what the pay masters demand.

 

[collingwoodmick]

They are certainly free to sack him, however I believe this is the precise sticking point that is going to ultimately cost RA a lot of money and Folau’s appeal upheld in that their actions were manifestly and grossly punitive for the alleged breaches that are said to have occurred. Especially given there are multiple examples of other public scandals involving other players that could be said to also have breached various and numerous items in the same code of conduct involving domestic violence, rapes, public indecency, assaults the list goes on yet none of the offenders in those cases had their contracts summarily terminated...and one has to consider well which of these infractions and in some cases crimes are considered more deserving of termination from their positions? An offensive but otherwise non-violent post on social media, or actual violence committed against a person/s requiring medical treatment? Offence is taken not meted out one must remember and is an intangible subjective thing to quantify or allege, whereas the act of committing assault or other violent and lewd acts is easily observable and the amount of “damage” purported by the offender easily quantified and proven, as is their intent to inflict it. Is it simply because there are more voices saying “I’m offended!!” this time that’s given rise to such an excessive punishment being meted out? And does (and should) this unquantifiable, anecdotal and intangible ‘emotional injuries’ let’s call it for the sake of defining the resulting effect (which legally is required if RA are going to argue why their actions were justified and warranted to that extent, some may call it mass hysteria or the bandwagon effect but each to their own I’ll try and be as unprovocative as possible for the purposes of this discussion) have more weight than the real observable injuries inflicted upon one, maybe more but less than a handful of people?
I deliberately have used this example by the way as they won’t be able to use the argument that they have terminated him on the basis of consumer sentiment or perception of the RA or Wallaby’s brand, because legally there was no brand association in the platform Folau used to express these views of his. It was a personal account, it did not explicitly identify him as an employee of blah blah blah. he did not make the comments whilst acting as an employee or representative of the organisation or fulfilling the requirements of his role, so say like during a match interview or press conference or some kind of sponsor endorsement or that kind of thing, nor was it during a game or practice so the “in the workplace” position fails. Just because someone has signed an employment contract does not equal loss of all autonomy and the obligation to abide at all times by the policies dictated by your employer when not on work time, as it shouldn’t. People may not like nor agree with this but this is how the legalities of it are going to play out. And no, corporate sponsors worried about their brand perception by association is too long of a bow to be able to draw it’s not solid enough to be allowable by even the most receptive magistrate or tribunal panel.

It’s a shame that it’s taken 51 pages for a summary this objective, fair and reasonable to be made. Bravo.

 

[Chief]

Danny Baker was sacked from his long standing job with the BBC for a perceived racist joke he made on his personal twitter account .
https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...y/news-story/8218a3466dbbe86f655205a27e1b1a09

It was of A picture depicting a monkey leaving a building dressed in a suit holding the hands of an adult couple. He titled it Royal baby leaving hospital. .
The poor taste joke being the monkey was the child as Meghan is of African heritage.

Can’t understand why Bakers right to be racist is being impeded, what is this world coming to, where is free speech????
Was his private email account , nothing to do with the BBC.?????

Free speech is NOT a licence to say anything you want at anytime.

Baker will now have to live with the consequences of his post.

Will Issy???

Wow.

 

[Gough]

Wow.

Danny Baker is a veteran plonker, he used to be one of Gazza's drinking buddies. back when people where prepared to be seen in public with him.

 

[Kwality]

Sounds like it. Someone probably had a quiet word that the kangaroo court doesnt trump a contract.

+ damages, costs & the restraint of trade implications for all sports across our fair land particularly though the ARU & NRL. For the reasons outlined above, every step is being legalled.

 

[Chief]

Danny Baker is a veteran plonker, he used to be one of Gazza's drinking buddies. back when people where prepared to be seen in public with him.

He's always seemed like just a harmless boring old radio fart.

 

[Dixie Normous]

He comes across like a complete moron when he talks, he can barely string three words together.

 

[Evolved1]

Which is why it highlights who he really is when he signs agreements with countries where being gay is illegal.

Its a sin punishable by prison, execution, or just being thrown off a building in a whole heap of countries where QANTAS has business deals.

But apparently a quote on Twitter is far more dangerous.

Is anyone here arguing that Qantas or AJ are moral authorities? That's a red herring.

Folau apparently believes he is a moral authority, yet he hasn't even been able to stick to the terms clearly presented in the players code of conduct.

A fundamental right of employers is their ability to discipline / terminate the employment of their employees who refuse to respect and follow the terms of their employment. RA's code of conduct can be found online, and it's quite clear that Folau has breached the terms of that agreement.

 

[Evolved1]

^^^^This was sarcism ..

I would like to see everyone who disagrees with me lose their jobs ...was a dig at the hypocrisy

If offended people can demand Israel lose his job then why can't everyone demand those that offend them lose their job

If you can present a case that my posts have violated the terms of my employment and adversely affected the public image of my employer, then you may have a point.

Be my guest...

 

[Evolved1]

Lots of Courts/laws in play here. Court of public opinion is whats driving the story IMHO, whether the code of conduct claims can be sustained, any precedents?

He was found guilty of a high level breach the players' code of conduct by a three person panel.

 

[Evolved1]

That's par the course for many religions....its been done for centuries for all sinners not just gays

Also some of the vilest abuse I have heard personally and on social media is by atheists towards religious folks. I had a atheist friend who would mock religious people mercilessly and bully them. I don't want atheists to lose their jobs over that and I can't recall religious people demanding they lose their jobs

There's a whole lot of hypocrisy and intolerance going around

How many Christians have committed suicide because they were mocked by atheists?

 

[Evolved1]

Does Israel actually hate gays or any on that list ....my impressions is he doesn't
If he singled out gays only that would be unacceptable but he made a list of 8 and others have said it is a list he gets from the Bible.

It's what his religion believes and since he put it on his personal media I have no issue

We seem to tolerate anything Islamic far more than other religions and media and politicians will bend backwards to not offend Muslims but it has become very noticeable that other religions do not get the same courtesy.
BTW I believe most Muslims are decent people but I do wonder if a Muslim said this would there be there be the same outrage??

Another thing to consider religious beliefs are thousands of years old and many think they can wipe this way because we live in 2019
Look at the comments on here about footy clubs and the passion that flows over a sport and most clubs are not even 100 years old but people go crazy to defend their club.
Try to get a club to cease existing or change its jumper etc and you will see major emotionalism

This also would be interesting. What if an Indigenous person made similar comments because homosexuality was not part of their culture - would people be more reticent to comment as they would be accused of being racist.

Those who have said religious beliefs are crazy and intolerant would they say the same regarding Aboriginal beliefs from what Elders say below

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/rend...e/news-story/78299963aabd2c955b1d054efdcaa5ab

Anthony Mundine is Aboriginal and Muslim. He publicly voiced anti-American opinions after 9/11, and has also shared his homophobic views openly; I don't recall the media or general public accepting those views with open arms as you imagine.

The idea that Christians are mistreated in Australia is nonsense.

 

[DogDays]

The idea that Christians are mistreated in Australia is nonsense.

I call bulls*&t.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro