YES, the football league. (and should the AFL comment on social issues)

[RobbieK]

Exactly. Hence Carltons position is completely justified

Carlton's statement only served to demonstrate that they were hypocrites who stood for nothing. They would have been better saying nothing at all.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Carlton's statement only served to demonstrate that they were hypocrites who stood for nothing. They would have been better saying nothing at all.

Why are they hypocrites

 

[Hawk_francais]

Why are they hypocrites

"The Carlton FC is a leader in engendering equality..."

"The Carlton FC will not go so far as to actually support equality, in the explicit sense, but we encourage everybody to vote..."

 

[RobbieK]

Why are they hypocrites

Look at their statement: http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2017-09-20/carlton-statement

To position yourself as a "leader" at engendering equality, committed to a community free from discrimination, and yet show no leadership at all on an issue of equality and discrimination because you "respect the personal choice" of those who clearly don't value equality or non-discrimination is hypocrisy. You either stand for it or you don't.

Imagine rather than discrimination against homosexuals this was an issue of discrimination against women or against races. How would you feel about them saying that they were a club that believed in equality, were a leader in equality, but nevertheless respected the views of those who disagreed? That we are an anti-racist or anti-sexist club, but respect the views of racists and sexists?

You see, it was a statement that showed they stood for nothing in particular.

 

[Leeda]

Woah! Little horsey woah and calm down to a little trot amongst the daisies.

Hedonistic and obvious conglomerations of ideas can create a plethora of ideas that will never see the light of day.

Hypocrates would never have avowed some of these things let alone all of them.

there is only so much cash in the hand that won't end up being dirty.

Parry on my fair friends and make it reasonably logical.

Greek, Roman, and Knights of the round table are my inspirations... read a bit of them and see

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Look at their statement: http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2017-09-20/carlton-statement

To position yourself as a "leader" at engendering equality, committed to a community free from discrimination, and yet show no leadership at all on an issue of equality and discrimination because you "respect the personal choice" of those who clearly don't value equality or non-discrimination is hypocrisy. You either stand for it or you don't.

Imagine rather than discrimination against homosexuals this was an issue of discrimination against women or against races. How would you feel about them saying that they were a club that believed in equality, were a leader in equality, but nevertheless respected the views of those who disagreed? That we are an anti-racist or anti-sexist club, but respect the views of racists and sexists?

You see, it was a statement that showed they stood for nothing in particular.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they were "hypocrites". But the statement was waffle.

If they pay someone for strategic communication, they should get their money back.

Woah! Little horsey woah and calm down to a little trot amongst the daisies.

Hedonistic and obvious conglomerations of ideas can create a plethora of ideas that will never see the light of day.

Hypocrates would never have avowed some of these things let alone all of them.

there is only so much cash in the hand that won't end up being dirty.

Parry on my fair friends and make it reasonably logical.

Greek, Roman, and Knights of the round table are my inspirations... read a bit of them and see

An original take, admittedly.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Woah! Little horsey woah and calm down to a little trot amongst the daisies.

Hedonistic and obvious conglomerations of ideas can create a plethora of ideas that will never see the light of day.

Hypocrates would never have avowed some of these things let alone all of them.

there is only so much cash in the hand that won't end up being dirty.

Parry on my fair friends and make it reasonably logical.

Greek, Roman, and Knights of the round table are my inspirations... read a bit of them and see

Thanks for bringing a sense of calm and balance to this thread

 

[Sinjin Smith]

Look at their statement: http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2017-09-20/carlton-statement

To position yourself as a "leader" at engendering equality, committed to a community free from discrimination, and yet show no leadership at all on an issue of equality and discrimination because you "respect the personal choice" of those who clearly don't value equality or non-discrimination is hypocrisy. You either stand for it or you don't.

Imagine rather than discrimination against homosexuals this was an issue of discrimination against women or against races. How would you feel about them saying that they were a club that believed in equality, were a leader in equality, but nevertheless respected the views of those who disagreed? That we are an anti-racist or anti-sexist club, but respect the views of racists and sexists?

You see, it was a statement that showed they stood for nothing in particular.

Thats when you lose, argue the point not strawmans.........again. "Lets imagine that Carlton are against all that is good and righteous" which is in fact Essendon winning another premiership.

You are a bit of a fascist though. "You must think like me".

 

[Leeda]

Thanks for bringing a sense of calm and balance to this thread

no worries..

 

[Hawk_francais]

1. Ironically, you’re just talking about your own moral values here, oblivious to it you may be.

2. Sorry my bad. I forgot, you don’t accept that the postal vote was a personal choice.

3. Huh! The genocide in Myanmar is as relevant to Australians as the SSM survey? I never said such a thing. I merely said, that as you may find one issue unrelated to you, others may find another issue unrelated to them. Pull your head out of your bubble for a second would ya!

4. Yes, I bet you do want to forget about that author. An inconvenient truth. And wipe aside any example that demonstrates how someone could vote No and not be homophobic. This is what confirmation bias does. I could point you to a gay man who is against SSM (even for the very reasons I referred to) and you’d probably be arrogant enough still to call him a homophobe too.

1. Morality is a belief in inherent values which define actions as right or wrong. I said that your comparison of SSM to incest and bestiality was insulting, which could be demonstrated by the amount of people who would be insulted by that comparison (most of the LGBT+ community). It's actually not ironically moral then, is it? Why don't you stick to answering the question, I think you find that difficult enough.

2. I accept the postal vote was a personal choice. Are you saying that personal choices can't affect other people?

3. Yes, some people in Australia might find SSM unrelated to them. Would they be correct? Clearly not, since the government handed them responsibility for deciding the rights of 5% of Aus society. Does it matter if they are correct? Not really, as we're talking about 'no' voters, not those who abstained.

4. At least once in every reply, you use a term which is really ill-suited to describe the situation. 'Confirmation bias' is an unconscious process, where you actually reinterpret reality to accord with your own beliefs. I think you just mean 'bias'. As for the author being an 'inconvenient truth', I would call her an irrelevant truth. This is her conclusion about her friends motivation:

"Our discussion reminded me that nothing is black-and-white, as simple as yes or no. As clear-cut as this issue is for me – a matter of rectifying inequality – it's not as straightforward for others, whose religious beliefs, values or experiences differ from mine. I've had to concede that "no" is not solely a product of homophobia."

I agree with the author that it's good to exercise compassion, but she gives no reason that her friend's religious beliefs, values or experiences are not just the product of her homophobic environment. I refuse to accept the phobic views of others just because the idea of equality is difficult for them to conceive.

Now you've raised an interesting question. What about all the gay people who voted 'no'? There certainly would have been some.

i) The majority (of that tiny minority within a minority) would have done so on religious grounds, in order to accord with the homophobic word of God. In wishing to inflict that God on others, they are certainly behaving homophobically.
ii) Some would have opposed SSM on the basis that they oppose marriage as a patriarchal construct, and don't think that anyone should get married. Fair enough - doesn't seem very homophobic. I would still be very critical of their actions though. Prudence would suggest that by voting 'no', they are certainly siding with, and giving strength to the patriarchal (and homophobic) establishment which they oppose. More importantly, they are conflating their own prejudice with prejudice against the whole LGBT+ community.
iii) You think it's arrogant to say that a homosexual person can still harbour homophobic feelings, or exhibit inadvertent homophobic behaviour? Internalised homophobia is widely discussed by the LGBT+ academics.

 

[Hawk_francais]

Thats when you lose, argue the point not strawmans.........again. "Lets imagine that Carlton are against all that is good and righteous" which is in fact Essendon winning another premiership.

You are a bit of a fascist though. "You must think like me".

The amount of times one can read the term 'straw man' on bigfooty is astounding. I don't think I've once seen it correctly used. Imagining a hypothetical situation could never be a straw man fallacy. It would be a straw man fallacy if the poster had presupposed that they were arguing about racism.

 

[RobbieK]

Thats when you lose, argue the point not strawmans.........again. "Lets imagine that Carlton are against all that is good and righteous" which is in fact Essendon winning another premiership.

You are a bit of a fascist though. "You must think like me".

No, I think where you lose is throwing around a few labels you clearly don't understand and/or don't apply.

As already pointed out, not a strawman. An analogy.

And where did I say everyone should think like me? Carlton are the ones who self-identified as leaders on social issues like this and they are also the ones who decided to put out a weak statement showing no leadership at all. That makes me a fascist how?

 

[Kummerspeck]

You are a bit of a fascist though.

This really has become a catch all for 'things I don't like.'

 

[Ron The Bear]

Now you've raised an interesting question. What about all the gay people who voted 'no'? There certainly would have been some.

i) The majority (of that tiny minority within a minority) would have done so on religious grounds, in order to accord with the homophobic word of God. In wishing to inflict that God on others, they are certainly behaving homophobically.
ii) Some would have opposed SSM on the basis that they oppose marriage as a patriarchal construct, and don't think that anyone should get married. Fair enough - doesn't seem very homophobic. I would still be very critical of their actions though. Prudence would suggest that by voting 'no', they are certainly siding with, and giving strength to the patriarchal (and homophobic) establishment which they oppose. More importantly, they are conflating their own prejudice with prejudice against the whole LGBT+ community.
iii) You think it's arrogant to say that a homosexual person can still harbour homophobic feelings, or exhibit inadvertent homophobic behaviour? Internalised homophobia is widely discussed by the LGBT+ academics.

iv) I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
...
Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.

Bigot?

I can’t seem to bring myself to celebrate the triumph of same-sex marriage. Deep down, I know that every American, gay or straight, has suffered a great loss because of this.

I’m not alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don’t hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/im-gay-and-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

Bigot?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The amount of times one can read the term 'straw man' on bigfooty is astounding. I don't think I've once seen it correctly used. Imagining a hypothetical situation could never be a straw man fallacy. It would be a straw man fallacy if the poster had presupposed that they were arguing about racism.

People have clearly seen people accuse others of making "strawman arguments" and presumably think it sounds clever, so they just drop it into their responses when they're short of anything sensible to say.

What ... what ... that's a strawman!

It's up there with claiming to have been "taken out of context" when nothing of the sort has occurred.

 

[lethal03]

Candyman to replace Gill.

 

[Hawk_francais]

iv) I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

Bigot?

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/im-gay-and-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

Bigot?

A bigot? Given that his arguments are essentially, in order:
i) SS couples are different, and because of that, they should never be equal.
ii) SS couples are harming the 'once noble institution' of marriage because they get married without the possibility to procreate.
iii) Children need a mother and a father (which is a terrible argument against gay adoption, not gay marriage).

... I'd say it's a bigoted view - and in the definitive sense: it's ignorant, prejudicial and intolerant. Why did you think this was a good source? Can you explain even one of these arguments in a reasonable way?

EDIT: I didn't even see you other article from the Witherspoon institute until just now.
1. The writer is a devout catholic, so see my previous post.
2. The Witherspoon institute are a conservative think tank with a pretty dodgy history in fudging studies about SSM, abortion etc.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/10/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_2850302.html

 

[Snake_Baker]

You are a bit of a fascist though. "You must think like me".

This really has become a catch all for 'things I don't like.'

It ranks right up there with misogynist.

 

[Kummerspeck]

It ranks right up there with misogynist.

If it makes you feel better I feel you're more in the incel camp.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If it makes you feel better I feel you're more in the incel camp.

Is this supposed to justify your irrational view of the world?

 

[Kummerspeck]

Is this supposed to justify your irrational view of the world?

How are your Port Arthur conspiracy theories going?

 

[Ron The Bear]

I'd say it's a bigoted view... Why did you think this was a good source?

Just attempting to gauge where you stand. At least you're consistent, even if you do sound like one of the aforementioned 'Gaystapo'.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

No, I think where you lose is throwing around a few labels you clearly don't understand and/or don't apply.

As already pointed out, not a strawman. An analogy.

And where did I say everyone should think like me? Carlton are the ones who self-identified as leaders on social issues like this and they are also the ones who decided to put out a weak statement showing no leadership at all. That makes me a fascist how?

You can call it whatever you want, I don't give a s**t. Carltons statement and stance on the postal vote for SSM was neutral as per the ******* framework of the vote. You introduced the women and race argument which doesn't apply to SSM or Carltons stance. You are introducing an argument that isn't there, only doing it to boost your self righteousness.

 

[Hawk_francais]

You can call it whatever you want, I don't give a s**t. Carltons statement and stance on the postal vote for SSM was neutral as per the ******* framework of the vote. You introduced the women and race argument which doesn't apply to SSM or Carltons stance. You are introducing an argument that isn't there, only doing it to boost your self righteousness.

Well, can you explain how Carlton can be self-professed "leaders in engendering equality" and then be neutral on "an issue of equality" at the same time? Sounds like cowardly, hypocritical BS to me.

Don't feel too bad, my club also offered a completely spineless statement on the issue.

 

[RobbieK]

You can call it whatever you want, I don't give a s**t. Carltons statement and stance on the postal vote for SSM was neutral as per the ******* framework of the vote. You introduced the women and race argument which doesn't apply to SSM or Carltons stance. You are introducing an argument that isn't there, only doing it to boost your self righteousness.

It really is pretty simple. If you claim to be a leader for equality, identify an issue as a matter of equality, and then stay neutral, then you are no leader on equality are you? I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep attacking me.