-
@booboo said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean who was the author? (Can't see through the pay wall)
None other than Alan Jones. Apologies, I should have put that in but thought it obvious given the bile directed at Castle, Clyne and Hore.
-
Alan Jones got it spot on. I hope Folau takes this to court
-
@antipodean interesting take as a gay man.
-
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean interesting take as a gay man.
... who is capable of objective review and an accurate summary of the facts. Alan Jones has, as Baron Silas Greenbank states, got it spot on alright.
I've had some idle time this afternoon and, in casting about the issues of the day, I have found several opinions about the matter echoing Alan Jones' view.
-
As far as pissing sponsors off Folau has really nailed it.
Given that he plays for the Qantas Wallabies and he has condemned fornicators and gays, I wonder if he knows that the unofficial expanded version of the acronym "Qantas"?
(Queers And Nymphomaniacs Trained As Stewards").
-
@Snowy said in The Folau Factor:
As far as pissing sponsors off Folau has really nailed it.
Given that he plays for the Qantas Wallabies and he has condemned fornicators and gays, I wonder if he knows that the unofficial expanded version of the acronym "Qantas"?
(Queers And Nymphomaniacs Trained As Stewards").
Funnt how QANTAS are happy to parther with countries that murder gays
-
[...] “Rod Kafer somewhat fancifully said: “The Wallabies are a better team without Folau.” With that judgment, why would anyone listen to his commentary? No wonder he failed as a coach if that is his evaluation of a prodigious talent.” [...]
I can’t say I’ve agreed with Alan Jones in the past, but that was awesome..
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
@Snowy said in The Folau Factor:
As far as pissing sponsors off Folau has really nailed it.
Given that he plays for the Qantas Wallabies and he has condemned fornicators and gays, I wonder if he knows that the unofficial expanded version of the acronym "Qantas"?
(Queers And Nymphomaniacs Trained As Stewards").
Funnt how QANTAS are happy to parther with countries that murder gays
Yeah, and fornicators. I guess the $ or free fuel overrode any moral qualms (I doubt they had any though).
Apparently they had a gay head of recruitment for cabin crew years ago and ended up with a disproportionate amount of gay cabin crew. Don't know how the ended up with the nymphos - just needed something for the "N" I suppose.
-
-
@antipodean That is such a good article by Jones.
I'm not really on his side on this issue, but it's really made me think about my position.
Which is exactly what a good column should do.
-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean That is such a good article by Jones.
I'm not really on his side on this issue, but it's really made me think about my position.
Which is exactly what a good column should do.
He brings up some good points. I agree about due process but won't pass judgement as I don't know the contract or previous steps taken and how that fits a breach. To assume that process hasn't been followed is to assume knowledge of these facts.
I'll also ignore that whataboutism in there. Yes, QANTAS are hypocritical if cosying up to Brunei but condemning Folau but that is a separate issue and not one that that decides his contract.
The bit I don't agree with is that early statement of 'Folau’s right to cite the King James Bible?' as if a 'free speech' right to quote an outdated doctrine is something that is acceptable in today's society. (BTW if Folau did quote the KJB then I think he missed out the bit about self abusers. Maybe that tells us something?).
The point is that Folau has chosen to highlight an outdated doctrine because he either agrees with it or is unwilling to question it. There are plenty of other bible verses that he probably discards at will. I haven't noticed him condemning cross breeders of cattle or people that wear garments of a wool and linen mix. Damn those shellfish eaters as well! Does he banish his missus for 7 days while menstruating? Slavery is cool as long as you gather your slaves from immigrants and not locals as well.
He is free to believe what he wants and is free to say what he wants but actions have consequences and IF those consequences have been clearly put to him AND he chose to ignore them then he rides on his choices.
-
Another interesting take:
[...]
Folau has also received support from Australian Liberal MP Tim Wilson, who famously proposed to his husband in parliament while speaking on a same-sex marriage bill in 2017.
Wilson told ABC people need to be allowed to express their views.
"Rugby isn't just a game for people who are agnostic or atheist. In a free, pluralistic democracy, that should have space for everybody to express their opinion," he said.
"Quoting the Bible or reciting a well-established position around morality and private morality I don't think crosses that line."
[...]
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12225014
-
@Crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean That is such a good article by Jones.
I'm not really on his side on this issue, but it's really made me think about my position.
Which is exactly what a good column should do.
He brings up some good points. I agree about due process but won't pass judgement as I don't know the contract or previous steps taken and how that fits a breach. To assume that process hasn't been followed is to assume knowledge of these facts.
I'll also ignore that whataboutism in there. Yes, QANTAS are hypocritical if cosying up to Brunei but condemning Folau but that is a separate issue and not one that that decides his contract.
The bit I don't agree with is that early statement of 'Folau’s right to cite the King James Bible?' as if a 'free speech' right to quote an outdated doctrine is something that is acceptable in today's society. (BTW if Folau did quote the KJB then I think he missed out the bit about self abusers. Maybe that tells us something?).
The point is that Folau has chosen to highlight an outdated doctrine because he either agrees with it or is unwilling to question it. There are plenty of other bible verses that he probably discards at will. I haven't noticed him condemning cross breeders of cattle or people that wear garments of a wool and linen mix. Damn those shellfish eaters as well! Does he banish his missus for 7 days while menstruating? Slavery is cool as long as you gather your slaves from immigrants and not locals as well.
He is free to believe what he wants and is free to say what he wants but actions have consequences and IF those consequences have been clearly put to him AND he chose to ignore them then he rides on his choices.
So apart from calling the hypocrisy 'whataboutery' you dont want to talk about it. How convenient, but maybe the best way of not talking about it is to actually not talk about it. But instead you decided to call the relevant hypocrisy 'whataboutery' before proclaiming you would not talk about it...
It is starting to become amusing that the anti free speech advocates always revert to the mindless mantra about speech having consequences... it is a truism... every action in the universe has a consequence. Only morons or people who dont actually believe in free speech every come up with that truism. They would have been the ones standing beside the book bonfires in 1930 Germany.. not actually throwing books but telling the book owners that owning books has consequences. And that they knew that having those sorts of books might result in them being burned.. owning books has consequences afterall.
Some people state they others can say what they want... which is speaking with a forked tongue as what they really mean is.... People can say whatever they want as long as they understand that powerful institutions can ruin them for wrong think.. because... consequences.
In a few years we might be jailed for saying that migration is a not a good thing. And that would be ok.. because ... consequences?
Saying an action has consequences is meaningless, the debate is about wether the consequence is a good thing or not.
Anybody who thinks that the way Falou is being treated is acceptable better buckle up because you really better hope you stay on the right side of institutions because as individuals you are less and less protected to say what you think, and you are supporting that oppressive move towards institutional control over what you and your children think. Shame on you all.
BTW I think Falous stone age ideals are bloody stupid and disagree with him completely. But isnt it great I get a chance to disagree with some ideas I disagree with.
Apparently not according to some.I just wish some of those lamely defending this oppressive action would actually have the guts to stand up and say.. ' you know what.... I support the idea of powerful institutions telling individuals what they can and cannot say in more and more detail because they know best and.... consequences'
At least it would be honest.
This from @Crucial is close though
"as if a 'free speech' right to quote an outdated doctrine is something that is acceptable in today's society."Free speech in quotes?.... quoting a sincere belief is not acceptable to society?... and by society you mean powerful institutions?
I think it is very acceptable to quote the bible. Or any other fantasy novel. -
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
I hope everyone is enjoying this thread, because I see Comrade Jacinda is about to crack down on social media.
Might not be legal to have this discussion in a few years.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback
Great post.
Funny how the consequences argument always comes after the fact. Shouldve known better. What are the free speech rules going forward?
Can you quote song lyrics without being convicted of a crime? Is all scripture quoting offensive? Who decides, and on what basis?Oh, you just wait to see what the institutions decide huh?
Nobody knows the rules until someone transgresses and then they're "obvious".
Slippery slope getting steeper
-
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
I hope everyone is enjoying this thread, because I see Comrade Jacinda is about to crack down on social media.
Might not be legal to have this discussion in a few years.
Got any links on this?
All I see is related to the livestream of the chch incident. Don’t see anything about discussions being illegal?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I would like that 5 times if I could. The consequences argument is piss weak and I'm tired of hearing it. If the consequences are disproportionate then free speech as a value is eroded. This is a continuing trend recently that is making me very uncomfortable - anti-free speech SJWs creating petitions and pressuring companies to fire people because they said something wrong at some point in time, and people standing by justifying it to themselves with the "consequences" argument.
If we value our freedom in the west, and we bloody well should given how many people died to secure it, then we need to stop sitting by while fringe radicals dictate what happens to people accused of "wrongthink".
-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
I hope everyone is enjoying this thread, because I see Comrade Jacinda is about to crack down on social media.
Might not be legal to have this discussion in a few years.
Got any links on this?
All I see is related to the livestream of the chch incident. Don’t see anything about discussions being illegal?
The devil will be in the details there, but it clearly goes way beyond just the live stream and well into the realm of banning the undefinable "hate speech". Governments cannot be trusted with too much power, especially when it comes to speech.
-
@MajorRage look for the stories about a crack down on Social Media and he meeting with Macron.
As said above, government defines hate speech then forums/Facebook/etc are on the hook.
A reasonable example would be the transgender controversy in sport, something we discuss a lot here obviously. Would we get fined for calling the weight lifter a man?
If so that’s the Fern gone.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions