Religion Folau

[Bradesmaen]

That affirmation is correct. Am i sure of what? I think you are responding to the wrong poster..?

You said there was no affirmation. Now that may have been a grammatical error on your behalf, but how was I to know that?

 

[raskolnikov]

Wow, people get so wound up about Folau when half of them don't even believe in God and Hell. Stop bullying Folau and talking about his posts and all that crap if half of you don't believe in what he was saying.

Sorry if I offend anyone but jeez people need to get a grip and stop getting so offended at stupid stuff.

It's irrelevant if we believe it. You don't think Folau's, and people of similar beliefs, actions are affected by their beliefs?

 

[deanc]

You said there was no affirmation. Now that may have been a grammatical error on your behalf, but how was I to know that?

OK, perhaps I could of used better grammar but my polite response was to poster Shilts who said, quote; 'he/she/other had never heard of an affirmation'...

 

[Evolved1]

Mundine is a flog, and yes the community hates him. As for ‘extremist’ Muslim views.....myriad of evidence to suggest religiously justified hatred of homosexuality (amongst other Koranic ‘teachings’) is far from just an ‘extremist’ Muslim position.

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/islams-jihad-against-homosexuals

Bottom line, Folau has copped a far heavier whack from the moralists in the media (Fitzsimons, Waleed et al), politicians, and the business community, over one dumb arse meme, then Mundine EVER copped throughout over a decade of hateful bile spewed against amongst other targets, non Aboriginal people, homosexuals, as well as his continual role of apologist for Islamic terrorism, 9/11...etc etc.

And he certainly hasn’t been ‘cancelled’ the way Folau has.

For example, just last year this was Mundine appearing on I’m A Celeb Get Me Out of Here.

View attachment 674096

Meanwhile Folau will probably have to leave the country if he ever wants to find any kind of paid employment again.

THERE is the double standard.

The truth is people find it far, far easier to openly and publicly critique and condemn Christianity and Christians, then they do Islam and Muslim’s.

One may rear up and threaten to kill you if you question or criticise there belief system, whereas the other one won’t.

That’s just reality.

I see that as a biased opinion rather than reality defined.

Have you read the bible? It contains homophobic passages to the point of demanding the stoning of gays, genocide in the name of god, sexism, instructions on how to sell your daughter; heck, even a decent justification for abortion (lol). It's every bit the equal of the quran in terms of its barbarity. Just take a look at the passage below...

"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137:9

It's hardly surprising given that the same imaginary god was the inspiration behind both the bible and quran.

'I'm a celebrity, get me out of here' is the home of C-grade and unknown 'celebrities'. They had Kate Fisher version xl on ffs, so an appearance on that show is hardly a measure of positive public sentiment.

The truth is that fundamentalist Christians are more vocal with their stupidity in Australia, likely because they feel more accepted than Muslims here. Why shouldn't they? A large portion of the Liberal party leadership of this decade have had extremist Christian faith.

Unfortunately for Folau and his ilk, the 21st century is catching up with them. They cry victim because they can no longer freely vilify homosexuals and people of other/no faith.

Folau is the Pauline Hanson of rugby. That's reality. One less fundie moron in Australia is a step in the right direction for the future of our nation.

Do you see Houli or Khawaja posting homophobic views on social media?

I criticise Islam just as frequently as I criticise Christianity, and my personal experience is that Muslims on the whole accept critique far more graciously. Just look at the ease in which Folau plays the victim card; it's mind boggling how someone can bash gays, then claim to be the victim when they're told to pull their head in.

Folau has had more warnings than anyone with an IQ over 80 should require. Good riddance.

 

[Evolved1]

I asked for you to back up your assertion that Folau's post would cause harm and how much harm you estimate
You provide nothing but false outrage and virtue signalling guff

You asked me 3 questions and I responded to each rationally with no hint of outrage.

I asked you one question, and you ignored it.

I prefer posting with people who can form coherent and logical arguments, and that's clearly beyond you. Feel free to scroll past my posts without comment.

 

[Evolved1]

I would support their rights to tweet it , I would also think they are a ******* idiots. I honestly prefer people not being scared to tell me their true beliefs, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to judge people. I think there are lines that can be crossed and there are laws in place to account for that, if no laws are broken I fail to see how people can be punished for their beliefs. If it is a breach of contract argument I believe that belongs in the courts.

People always talk about the suicide rate in the gay community and bring that up as a reason to protect them from anything offensive. Well lets look at the suicide rate of men compared to woman . Men commit around 75% of all suicides but I don't see anyone attacking nut job feminists like Clementine FORD or Van BADHAM for contributing to the Male suicide rate and calling for their jobs.

Playing devils advocate here...shouldn't people be fearful to spruik certain beliefs and values in public?

Think of pedophilia for a good example. Do we really want it de-stigmatized as MAP (minor attracted persons)? If you accept that as a viewpoint to be debated in the public sphere, you give it legitimacy.

In response to your second paragraph, I believe that women attempt suicide in greater numbers than men while using less violent methods. That would account for the greater number of men that successfully commit suicide, wouldn't it?

 

[Evolved1]

Perhaps so, but a cursory google search suggests this is now in common vernacular! In fact, they are actually reserving their rights to come up with many and more new identities in the future as they see fit:

• L.G.B.T (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) and. • L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual) The PLUS (+) in our name ensures that we will always be inclusive of all identities to make our community feel welcomed and that nobody is left out.
Why the Plus — MY LGBT PLUS

Well you can’t say they are not inclusive! I have to say I question the extra Q for Questioning...if you are questioning then why attribute a label at all, in fact why even let your sexuality define you at all really? It kinda flies in the face of the fundamental basis for the progressive movement for equality in that people shouldn’t be defined by their sexuality/race/gender/religion etc etc we are all equal as human beings...isn’t that the point?

You must be a slow learner.

 

[Evolved1]

Wow, people get so wound up about Folau when half of them don't even believe in God and Hell. Stop bullying Folau and talking about his posts and all that crap if half of you don't believe in what he was saying.

Sorry if I offend anyone but jeez people need to get a grip and stop getting so offended at stupid stuff.

I believe in Hell, Michigan.

 

[Evolved1]

In the past i have had a fair bit to to with contracts and they can be a legal nightmare and down to definition.
With the ARU offering Folau a million bucks to walk away recently says to me they are not confident in this case.

RA may be confident that they will win, but see $1 million as a worthwhile payoff to limit the damage from lengthy controversial public legal proceedings.

That's my best guess. I don't pretend to be a legal expert.

 

[Evolved1]

Sadly religion, unions and politicians use fear as it resonates with a larger portion of society.

Positive people simply don’t need these groups, thus there is no $ appealing to this segment of society

I disagree in regards to unions. Unions provide resources to lower level employees in the same way that organisational leadership has access to corporate resources.

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

 

[CM86]

Clem is called out continually.
Opposition to her is dismissed as misogyny, male privelege, Patriarchy.. etcetera

Why is that a problem?

 

[CM86]

I disagree in regards to unions. Unions provide resources to lower level employees in the same way that organisational leadership has access to corporate resources.

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

Almost half of all of your posts, are in this thread.

Excluding this thread, you've made around 18 posts per year.


I don't mind, as I'm enjoying your posts. But it would seem that there must be something personal to you in this.

 

[Echoes]

Why is that a problem?

Oh I don’t know, maybe because not every criticism of Clementine can just be dismissed as misogyny, sexism, patriarchy, male privilige etc?

 

[CM86]

Oh I don’t know, maybe because not every criticism of Clementine can just be dismissed as misogyny, sexism, patriarchy etc?

So? Ignore the dismissals.
Any reason you can't do that?

 

[CheapCharlie]

You asked me 3 questions and I responded to each rationally with no hint of outrage.

I asked you one question, and you ignored it.

I prefer posting with people who can form coherent and logical arguments, and that's clearly beyond you. Feel free to scroll past my posts without comment.

You answered in generalities when i asked for specifics
You also didnt address the folau post specifically

 

[CheapCharlie]

Why is that a problem?

The problem is she gets a pass because she is a woman, a feminist and is blaming men for all woes.
Misandry is acceptable in her circle.
It shouldnt be acceptable anywhere

 

[CM86]

The problem is she gets a pass because she is a woman, a feminist and is blaming men for all woes.
Misandry is acceptable in her circle.
It shouldnt be acceptable anywhere

It's just one person's opinion. Ignore it.

Can she not have an opinion? Can she not share it?
Do you want to take away her free speech?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

You’re confusing issue

Freedom of speech does mean freedom of consequence by its definition.

The issue at hand isn’t freedom of speech rather employment law and contract law and their reasonable reach and application.

I don't necessarily agree with that but understand why you make that comment.

Let me ask you this though. If I dress up in a Nazi uniform and walk down the middle of Bourke street yelling "Heil Hitler" and "gas the Jews" are you suggesting that I am free of any repercussion?

Or can I claim "free speech?"

 

[Echoes]

It's just one person's opinion. Ignore it.

Can she not have an opinion? Can she not share it?
Do you want to take away her free speech?

Why can’t you ignore Folau? Paul Joseph Watson? Milo? Alex Jones? Et al.

Is there language any more inflammatory than some of the rot we have seen from Clem?

You and your ilk don’t have any issue taking measures to silence your opponents, but you tell us to just ‘ignore’ ours.

Hence the hypocrisy of the left.

 

[Echoes]

The problem is she gets a pass because she is a woman, a feminist and is blaming men for all woes.
Misandry is acceptable in her circle.
It shouldnt be acceptable anywhere

Here here.

The fact issues like these continue to even be debated is an illustration on the sheer, naked, hypocrisy of the identitarian left.

 

[CheapCharlie]

It's just one person's opinion. Ignore it.

Can she not have an opinion? Can she not share it?
Do you want to take away her free speech?

She can have an opinion and for many years it was presented to hundreds of thousands of readers through fairfax media.
So her opinion was being presented as some cutting edge insight through the main stream media, influencing people too lazy to think about what she was saying. People with axes to grind against men.

It is the acceptance of her bigotry as being acceptable from womens interest groups that is the issue.
Now she has left fairfax her reach has been curtailed but she is still spewing out hate on twitter.
She ia very troll similar to Milo

 

[CM86]

Why can’t you ignore Folau? Paul Joseph Watson? Milo? Alex Jones? Et al.

Good point.

Are you saying that words from influential people, or people in positions to reach wider audiences, can have a strong influence on others due to their opinions and words?

 

[CM86]

She can have an opinion and for many years it was presented to hundreds of thousands of readers through fairfax media.
So her opinion was being presented as some cutting edge insight through the main stream media, influencing people too lazy to think about what she was saying. People with axes to grind against men.

It is the acceptance of her bigotry as being acceptable from womens interest groups that is the issue.
Now she has left fairfax her reach has been curtailed but she is still spewing out hate on twitter.
She ia very troll similar to Milo

So you believe she has/had some influence on Australian society, and how certain aspects of our society felt?
Do you think she might have made some people feel like outcasts, or might have made them feel that they weren't welcome in our society?
Do you think she might have made some people view others as outcasts, and made them want to exclude others from our society?

 

[Power Raid]

I don't necessarily agree with that but understand why you make that comment.

Let me ask you this though. If I dress up in a Nazi uniform and walk down the middle of Bourke street yelling "Heil Hitler" and "gas the Jews" are you suggesting that I am free of any repercussion?

Or can I claim "free speech?"

We don’t have anti Nazi laws (fortunately), so yes you could dress like a Nazi and yell Heil Hitler.

The reason I say fortunately as it perpetuates reinventing history. The reason I say that is everyone knows the horrors of Hitler and the regime but he wasn’t alone. If we ban Hitler, we also have to ban Stalin, mao, pol pot etc etc.



In regards to gasing the Jews, we do have laws against a comment like this, so this crosses the line legally.

From a personal perspective I find it offensive but not threatening or intimating, thus I don’t think it should be illegal. I’d prefer to know what people think, so I can make my own assessments as to whether I want them a part of my life.




In regards to Folau, I find his comments offensive but not intimidating or threatening. Further despite being offensive, he’s stating a facts regarding the religious positions. Thus no law is broken.

The real issue here is the loss of sponsorship $s from groups not wanting their brand associated with Folau or rugby.

I personally couldn’t work with Folau in any environment and would terminate as I want to build teams rather than division.

If rugby terminated him on work place issues like “team” I’d accept that as fair dismissal. If it’s about $s, then that’s unfair dismissal

 

[CheapCharlie]

So you believe she has/had some influence on Australian society, and how certain aspects of our society felt?
Do you think she might have made some people feel like outcasts, or might have made them feel that they weren't welcome in our society?
Do you think she might have made some people view others as outcasts, and made them want to exclude others from our society?

Folau believes he is repeating the message of the bible , the message of his religion.
Folau doesn't just target homosexuals, he targets a variety of actions and behaviours of men and women through his postings
He has received inordinate publicity and public discourse over his posting, focusing only on the homosexual part. Even though he was sending out the message to the already convinced and converted, a message that has been interpreted from the bible, that he believes in and is widely published and has been for hundreds of years.

Clem targets men as a group. The sins of one man is the sins of all men.
She seeks to influence her audience with constant criticism of men and linking men to all the woes in her world. It is misandry without disguise.
Yet, she receives support and acceptance from the feminist community

Seems like a lot of people on their soapboxes about a social media post from a dumb as a door knob rugby player are happy to give a free pass to far more bigoted behaviour from someone presenting their educational credentials as evidence their opinion should be accepted

Don't you find these obvious double standards odd?