• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

The Alpha Bro said:
Do we pander to religion? I definitely don't think we do in Europe and I'd presume it's the same in most other developed countries bar the States.

He lost his job, destroyed his career and is widely derided because of his views and rightly so. Gay marriage is legal in most progressive states, anywhere that has institutional racism/sexism is widely condemned and pressured to change (unless they have oil/serious lobbying power like Saudi or Israel).

It's got to the point where religious people are often shy/embarrassed to share that they are religious even when they have totally moderate and acceptable views re all of the above. Usually because it's the Folau types who are the loudest.
Click to expand...
IMO , yes, as evidenced by how religious beliefs are protected in hate speech in the same way racial and homophobic speech is when they're totally different things.

Thankfully, as the world gets more progressive more and more people are starting to see through the BS. Christianity is very cute with the way it "adapts" it's views to stay relevant, though.

If religious people still cling to a lot of the vile bollicks in the bible and what not about slavery being ok, sleeping with other men isn't ok and women as second class citizens then they should be embarrassed.
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
If the FBI are struggling, BLM do have it on their website - Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi.

Interestingly, their list of "demands" have changed quite a lot from last August when I posted that - seems as if they've scrubbed their pseudo-communism and destruction of the nuclear families off of the website now, unless I've missed it.
Click to expand...
You're taking about the global network foundation. You're saying BLM has a single organisation. Who is it. Don't just give me 1 such organisation where there are loads. Who trademarked the name?
 
Welsh Exile said:
You're taking about the global network foundation. You're saying BLM has a single organisation. Who is it. Don't just give me 1 such organisation where there are loads. Who trademarked the name?
Click to expand...
That's the broadly accepted "organisation" part of BLM which serves to give it clear goals etc. Of course there are those who say "black lives matter" rather than Black Lives Matter and thats a good distinction to make, but to argue that the BLM Foundation and organised structure isn't/wasn't the driving force is ludicrous.

I don't really understand what you're trying to get at regardless.



We've got fairly decent separation of active religion (though rightly taking many of its moral lessons) and active policy making in the west. Removal of protection of religious freedom under the law is a fairly slippery slope (it that's what I think you're suggesting in your other posts)
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
That's the broadly accepted "organisation" part of BLM which serves to give it clear goals etc. Of course there are those who say "black lives matter" rather than Black Lives Matter and thats a good distinction to make, but to argue that the BLM Foundation and organised structure isn't/wasn't the driving force is ludicrous.

I don't really understand what you're trying to get at regardless.



We've got fairly decent separation of active religion (though rightly taking many of its moral lessons) and active policy making in the west. Removal of protection of religious freedom under the law is a fairly slippery slope (it that's what I think you're suggesting in your other posts)
Click to expand...
Broadly accepted by who, Nigel Fararge?

it's not rocket science, bud. When you've got a MOVEMENT (particularly a leftist one) that comprises of tens of millions of people, you'll have many organisationS and chapterS all over the world who have a variety of views on a variety of different things.

The reason why there are so many different chapters with Black Lives Matter in the name is that no one has trademarked the name. You could set one up tomorrow if you wanted to. Call it the BLM rugby forum chapter or something.
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
That's the broadly accepted "organisation" part of BLM which serves to give it clear goals etc. Of course there are those who say "black lives matter" rather than Black Lives Matter and thats a good distinction to make, but to argue that the BLM Foundation and organised structure isn't/wasn't the driving force is ludicrous.

I don't really understand what you're trying to get at regardless.



We've got fairly decent separation of active religion (though rightly taking many of its moral lessons) and active policy making in the west. Removal of protection of religious freedom under the law is a fairly slippery slope (it that's what I think you're suggesting in your other posts)
Click to expand...

People should obviously be allowed to practice whatever religion they want. They can go to church or mosque or what have you, they can worship at home, teach their kids they're stupid beliefs if they like but it should be kept out of the educational sphere and people should be allowed to attack and mock those views.
 
Welsh Exile said:
People should obviously be allowed to practice whatever religion they want. They can go to church or mosque or what have you, they can worship at home, teach their kids they're stupid beliefs if they like but it should be kept out of the educational sphere and people should be allowed to attack and mock those views.
Click to expand...
Mate it is possible to have a perfectly reasonable theological debate without being a dick you know? You are clearly also doing that right now so I don't see what you think you can't do?
Welsh Exile said:
Broadly accepted by who, Nigel Fararge?

it's not rocket science, bud. When you've got a MOVEMENT (particularly a leftist one) that comprises of tens of millions of people, you'll have many organisationS and chapterS all over the world who have a variety of views on a variety of different things.

The reason why there are so many different chapters with Black Lives Matter in the name is that no one has trademarked the name. You could set one up tomorrow if you wanted to. Call it the BLM rugby forum chapter or something.
Click to expand...

I mean yes obviously, we're not going to agree here.
I think that the organisation which organises protests, collects millions of dollars and donations and lobbies government is a decent representation of the name which it uses itself - and that it you buy into those protests, donate or support its lobbying you are supporting the organisation.

You disagree because their trademark application was refused
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
Mate it is possible to have a perfectly reasonable theological debate without being a dick you know? You are clearly also doing that right now so I don't see what you think you can't do?


I mean yes obviously, we're not going to agree here.
I think that the organisation which organises protests, collects millions of dollars and donations and lobbies government is a decent representation of the name which it uses itself - and that it you buy into those protests, donate or support its lobbying you are supporting the organisation.

You disagree because their trademark application was refused
Click to expand...

No, I disagree as there is not one single BLM organisation. No single 1 leader. No one has trademarked the name. This is what you have tried to sneak in when it is patently not true. If you had said organisations I wouldn't have taken much issue but you much prefer to be able to lump it on 1 single organisation and implying that organisation represents the views of tens of millions of people. It's disingenuous and straight out of the Fararge playbook who started this whole "BLM the organisation" thing offf.
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
Mate it is possible to have a perfectly reasonable theological debate without being a dick you know? You are clearly also doing that right now so I don't see what you think you can't do?


I mean yes obviously, we're not going to agree here.
I think that the organisation which organises protests, collects millions of dollars and donations and lobbies government is a decent representation of the name which it uses itself - and that it you buy into those protests, donate or support its lobbying you are supporting the organisation.

You disagree because their trademark application was refused
Click to expand...
I should be allowed to be a dick if I want. We are when it comes to other types of views. If I said I believed in fairies I'm sure everyone on here would mock me. But if Folau spouts some homophobic religious shot you have to pussy foot around it rather than saying your religion has some disgusting views
 
Welsh Exile said:
No, I disagree as there is not one single BLM organisation. No single 1 leader. No one has trademarked the name. This is what you have tried to sneak in when it is patently not true. If you had said organisations I wouldn't have taken much issue but you much prefer to be able to lump it on 1 single organisation and implying that organisation represents the views of tens of millions of people. It's disingenuous and straight out of the Fararge playbook who started this whole "BLM the organisation" thing offf.
Click to expand...
BLM the multimillion dollar organisation started that whole thing off
 
Welsh Exile said:
I should be allowed to be a dick if I want. We are when it comes to other types of views. If I said I believed in fairies I'm sure everyone on here would mock me. But if Folau spouts some homophobic religious shot you have to pussy foot around it rather than saying you're religion is disgusting.
Click to expand...
You can be a dick - but you said you weren't allowed to mock - which is exactly what you're doing.

Really don't think there was any pussyfooting at all - he was called out by religious people and atheists alike for having repulsive views
 
Welsh Exile said:
Again, this is very vague. Can you clarify and provide any sources that ideally aren't Nigel Fararge.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep bringing up Nigel? I haven't mentioned him once.

I don't know what you want me to provide sources for? The existence of a massive organisation with a website, leaders and finances?
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
Why do you keep bringing up Nigel? I haven't mentioned him once.

I don't know what you want me to provide sources for? The existence of a massive organisation with a website, leaders and finances?
Click to expand...
You're being very disingenuous and aren't debating in good faith. You're saying there is 1 single organisation for BLM (actually you backtracked when I pulled you up on it and say it's "broadly accepted")

I have shown that is patently untrue. There are many. So, please show me the evidence of the single organisation that represents the the entire movement.
 
TRF_Olyy said:
Not really,
#BlackLivesMatter was a big social movement for literally years before someone co-opted the name and formed a legitimate/registered entity from it
Click to expand...
I was more addressing the last part of his post where he said Farage started the conversation about it being one organisation - if BLM the multi million dollar organisation didn't exist, noone would be saying it did
 
Welsh Exile said:
You're being very disingenuous and aren't debating in good faith. You're saying there is 1 single organisation for BLM (actually you backtracked when I pulled you up on it and say it's "broadly accepted")

I have shown that is patently untrue. There are many. So, please show me the evidence of the single organisation that represents the the entire movement.
Click to expand...
No I didn't backtrack or say that - but there is one VERY dominant organisation at the heart of the present movement that has a lot more money and power than the broad movement as a whole.

Movement ≠ equal organisation as I said at the top of the page
 

Latest posts

Top